Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Marking bios as reviewed without adding a TP

I don't want my question to appear that I have singled out one editor - it's actually a general question but I needed examples to demonstrate the issue, if it even is an issue. When reviewing articles in the queue, I've made it a habit to create a TP when there is none, but if one exists, I will add a project shell/banners if needed. I was reviewing some of the articles in the queue today and noticed several biographies reviewed by Vexations that were lacking TPs, including but not limited to Celia Tapias, Helena Wiewiórska, Elfriede Cohnen, Aenne Kurowski-Schmitz, Sergei Lemberg, Irmgard Fuest, and multiple others, whereas a TP was added to the non-bios. Perhaps it is his intention to go back and add them, I don't know. Is it no longer our responsibility to add TP and project banners to BLPs and biographies? Atsme📞📧 21:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, nope.And, I might add that it never was:-) But, at any case, shall some page-patroller pursue them (of his own) it is surely appreciated.∯WBGconverse 04:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Never added one, sorry... I'm sure it's laudable to do so, but not part of the core package, and it does rather slow you down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I use Rater to quickly add WikiProject banners, and I think it's very helpful if other reviewers do too, but it's not a required part of new page patrol, no. – Joe (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I assumed rater was part of the process because I was notified about the tool when I was given a short briefing on NPP procedure. It definitely doesn't hurt and helps make the new article pop up on various lists, potentially drawing more attention and improvements. Edaham (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: I sometimes add the banners, and sometimes dont. But whenever i see TP without banner I send the creator a message through curation tool along the lines "kindly add wikiproject banners on the talkpage of the articles. It is suggested to take a look at article from same field/type." —usernamekiran(talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for the helpful responses. Happy reviewing!! Atsme✍🏻📧 17:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

New Page patrol

I would like to become a New Page Reviewer in Wikipedia. I would like to trained under a trainer in the school. (please see this) --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 09:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for unsign--PATH SLOPU (Talk) 09:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Path slopu, before getting a trainer I would suggest you get some general Wikipedia policy experience from participating in WP:AFD. It is a great stepping stone to common tasks in NPP and to feel confident in patrolling new pages. I personally feel like I should have participated in more AFD discussions before patrolling new pages for more confidence in my reviewing. ~ Araratic | talk 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Araratic:Thank you for your advice. I participated in AfDs of some articles. I nominated some articles to AfD and CSD. Thank you PATH SLOPU (Talk) 15:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Path slopu: I would join Araratic in encouraging you to keep on editing and growing your skills. There are some recent concerns on your talk page which would suggest that the Patroller school might be a good option for you in a couple months. At that time if ICPH isn't able to help you I might be able to server as your trainer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Path slopu: I agree with Araratic. I also recommend you to get some general Wikipedia policy experience, but before starting participation in AfD directly, I recommend you to keep working on wikiproject kollam, and adding as many articles to your watchlist as possible. Keep adding the articles that you are interested/knowledgeable in. Also, wikiproject kollam should also include people from kollam, so working on that project would give you opportunity to work with policies of WP:BLP, biographies, among many others. That would take around 2-3 months. After working on these articles for a while, you should move to AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and Usernamekiran:Thank you for your valuable advice. I will practice in Wikiprojects, articles and AfD. ICPH have some technical problems in using enwiki in upcoming days. He explained it in his talk page. Would you mind to train me in the school? Please help. Thank you.PATH SLOPU (Talk) 02:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@PATH SLOPU: I don't think you're quite ready to join NPP. Keep up good work for a couple more months and then check back in and I'm guessing someone (maybe me) would be happy to help you with the school. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Thank you for your help. Would you mind to tell me what should I do in upcoming months before approaching school again? Kindly please help.PATH SLOPU (Talk) 12:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also
Join in on discussions listed at WP:AFD, or also perhaps at WP:RM. These are good places to start getting a firm grasp of policy knowledge. Review the notability pages in the box at the right.— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes and work to learn from the comments which have been posted on your talk page so you can avoid those kinds of issues in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Please STOP sending articles for deletion until you understand more about the process, it's beginning to look very disruptive. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and Theroadislong:Thank you for your advices. I will stop nominating articles to AfD before understanding all in it. Thank you.PATH SLOPU (Talk) 07:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources from Uzbekistan

An article I came across while patrolling, Development Strategy Center (Uzbekistan). In addition to being largely promotional content, most of its sources are from Uzbekistan media outlets. Given that the subject is an organization established by the Uzbek government, and that Uzbekistan is known for having particularly strict censorship of media, it is unclear to me that its sources are sufficiently independent from the subject (a confusion which is compounded by the sources all being in either Uzbek or Russian, making it harder to understand and research them). However, this analysis could potentially disqualify any Uzbek publication, which feels like a manifestation of WP:BIAS. In the meantime, I've tagged the page with a few relevant templates and left it unreviewed, but I would appreciate further input and guidance on this issue. Rosguilltalk 20:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am int he same predicament as you regarding the sources, mostly due to language barriers, but I agree with all your taggings, and would probably vote delete at AFD. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I too agree with all the tags. The fact of the matter is that coverage of topics in countries without a free and reliable press who operates according to the standards Wikipedia asks is difficult and going to lead to systemic under coverage of those countries. I see this most frequently with African topics but in this case the controlled state media cannot be thought of as RS. At best it would deserve a couple sentence stub. In reality Afd is probably the right way to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The customary procedure for foreign language sources is to use Google translate or request help from Wikipedia:Translators available. Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 23:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: Obviously foreign language sources can be acceptable. That's not the problem here. The problem is that what is being translated should not be considered reliable information - it's effectively state propaganda. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme, Barkeep49, and L3X1: I nominated for AfD as a result of this conversation–the AfD has received no responses thus far and has been relisted twice. If you feel so inclined, your added opinions would be appreciated. signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep and I responded at the same time. :) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly

We have an editor who has been creating pages for each constituency in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Examples: Kushinagar (Assembly constituency) Fazilnagar (Assembly constituency). Many of them had been sitting in the queue for a while so I don't think I'm the only one who has been passing on reviewing them. I did some exploration and research tonight and we have many parallel articles - with some constituency pages for the Uttar Pradesh LA going back several years as well as parallel type articles for state level constituencies in other countries. This would suggest a general community acceptance that such a topic is notable. But given the number created (and presumably the number which will be continued to be created since there are 403 possible constituencies) before I patrolled these, I thought it worth throwing here for any further thoughts and opinions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, national as well as provincial/state legislative districts fall into the camp of “nothing is inherently notable except for these things that are and you have to have been around a while to know it.” Annoying, but useful. Tl;dr, they contribute to our mission by providing people information important to their own governance and are kept in accord with WP:5P1 even if you can’t find strict GNG sourcing, based on the assumption that sourcing does exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • But these articles should be edited, and the editor advised, to use {{As of}} instead of "currently" as in "Currently this seat belongs to Bharatiya Janta Party" and avoid the word "last" in "who won in last Assembly election of 2017 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Elections". Especially if they are creating them in vast quantities. PamD 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Just checked and yes, those two issues are still present in their most recent creation Bairia (Assembly constituency). PamD 06:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed 35 of those articles, using the rationale similar to the one that Tony provided above. There is no way that these would ever be deleted. Their author should be told how to fix them, but I don't think they need to be told that every single time one of these is reviewed. If someone can get them to respond on their talk page and engage with a reviewer, that might be worthwhile. Vexations (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and left a message on the user's talkpage so but would suggest someone who has the actual suggestion or has done the actual reviewing might have been a better candidate to have done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I reviewed a bunch in the morning as well. I removed italics from the candidates' names and also added a wikilink in the body for the winning candidate (it was present in the infobox). I think "as of now" is one of the thing which is typically changed by semi-automatic tools.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

PROD Discussion

Editors here might wish to participate in a request for comments on some recent changes and proposed changes to the WP:PROD policy. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Proposed deletion policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Marie Lemoine

reviewed above article but has not gone to Google?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It has it just isn't on the first page of results. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thank you, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Bot-generated" category

At the bottom of WP:NPP/S, in the section 'essential further reading', it says "* Category:Unreviewed new articles – bot listed from the 30-day overspill". First, I can not see which bot is "listing" the pages, since it is a category, and second, most pages there are actually patrolled. Could we stop this category, of have a bot remove the {{New unreviewed article}} template from page that are patrolled? See Transparency Serbia for an example. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The hidden cat is added by {{Unreviewed}} and from what I saw, the template was added manually by the authors as can be seen in this sample 2018, 2017 and 2016 edits. AnomieBOT usually only add the |date= parameter if it wasn't there. But maybe there was a bot that used to do such listing which I am not aware of. Anyway, I agree it will be good for a bot to go round and remove them since they serve no purpose at this time. –Ammarpad (talk)

Quality scoring (ORES) to be added to New Pages Feed on October 4 or soon after

On September 17, the Growth team added the "Articles for Creation" side to the New Pages Feed. Though it took longer than expected for all the data to be populated correctly (read here for the details), we believe that there have not been any negative impacts on NPP activity in the feed. If there has, please let me know.

The second enhancement in this project, adding scoring on page issues and page quality to both the NPP and AfC sides of the feed, is planned to be deployed on October 4 or at the beginning of the following week. The idea is that this additional information will help reviewers prioritize their work so they can spend their time on those pages that need attention soonest. While this will affect NPP reviewers by adding information, reviewers will still be able to continue use their existing workflows if they choose (but we hope reviewers use the new scores!)

Specifically, this improvement will:

  • Score all pages in the New Pages Feed with two ORES models:
    • Predicted class: this estimates a class for each page (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class, Good, Featured).
    • Potential issues: this identifies which pages are most likely to be spam, attack, or vandalism.
  • The predictions will be listed along with each page in the feed for reviewers to reference.
  • Reviewers will also be able to filter the feed to only pages of certain predicted classes or with potential issues.
  • As pages change, so will their predictions. For instance, if a reviewer removes spam content from a page, that page would likely stop being shown as potentially spam in the feed.

This new information is testable in Test Wiki and has been tested by several NPP reviewers over the past several weeks, giving our team confidence that the code is ready. Please read here on how to test, if interested. Feel free to comment here or on the project's talk page with any thoughts or concerns. Thank you, and we're looking forward to rolling this out! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding AfC to New Pages Feed in six days

Hi all -- I just wanted to post again to let all NPP reviewers know that the New Pages Feed will change on Monday, September 17 to include a new "Articles for Creation" option. Please see this post from August 31 announcing this upcoming change for more information. This will not alter the experience of NPP reviewers at all, but changes that will alter (and hopefully enhance!) the NPP experience will be coming in October (specifically, adding ORES and copyvio data). If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post here or on the project's discussion. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

YAY!!!! 🎉🍾 🥂 - thank you MMiller!!! Atsme📞📧 01:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
erm... okey-dokey? feels better than "duly noted" lol —usernamekiran(talk) 08:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
My rucksack is packed to open. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We've deployed the code today, and you can see that "Articles for Creation" is now an option in the New Pages Feed. That side of the feed is not yet completely usable, because we are still running a script that is populating it with all 40,000+ drafts that exist. That script should finish within a few hours, and then the Growth team will test the feed to make sure everything is working right. The "New Page Patrol" side of the feed, however, should be working exactly as it always has with no changes, so please let me know if anything seems amiss. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm back with an update on the deployment. The deployment process is still ongoing because of some challenges we've run into with populating the New Pages Feed with the 40,000+ drafts that exist in English Wikipedia. While the logic and UI of the "Articles for Creation" side of the feed is working as expected, the drafts in the list and their associated metadata is not yet correct, and so that side of the feed is not quite ready to be used. Please see the AfC discussion page for the full update, and I will also continue to post progress here. Thank you for following along. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Another quick update. The feed is now populated with all drafts and metadata. We are still fixing a couple of UI bugs before we ask the AfC reviewing community to start using the feed. We expect those last issues to be resolved by the beginning of next week. Please see here for a full update. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Patrolling from the "Oldest" Workflow

I developed initially for myself and then to share with others a workflow for patrolling from the oldest side which has a few different quirks than when going from the newest side. I think I feel comfortable enough with it that I would like to move it into project space from my user space but thought it best to throw it out to the project rather than just boldly doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep that looks pretty similar to what I do when reviewing from the back. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • An additional scenario I'd like to discuss is what to do when an editor is clearly recreating articles that have already been redirected by consensus and doesn't WP:LISTEN. This is a pretty common thing to run into in the back of the queue because every time it gets recreated after the redirect it pops back up. Is the correct thing to do to just wait for the tendentious editor to either give up or WP:3RR themselves? Or is it appropriate to warn or otherwise report their behavior as vandalism? signed, Rosguill talk 06:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
My take: if redirected by explicit consensus (i.e. AfD etc.), warn and if necessary report as disruptive editing with reference to the record. If just repeatedly redirected by independent editors (i.e. implicit consensus), put up at AfD and create an explicit solution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
In general my rule of thumb is "do it once." So if I redirect and someone reverts me, I'll let another editor make the next move. If I find a page where another editor or reviewer has restored a redirect and I think it appropriate I will also do so. I will also restore a redirect a second time if one or more editors have restored that redirect after I did it. For clear cut SNG redirects (mainly in music) I try to strike up a discussion with the editor, along the lines of "Hey I see you're trying to create Foo Article but X editors have restored a redirect because of Foofoo. You can show notability by doing Y. Do you have any questions about this I might be able to answer?" To be honest I try to avoid going to AfD these days when I think the outcome should be redirect but sometimes it's unavoidable. I agree with Elmidae that if it's an AfD backed consensus that more assertive measures are OK including reporting to edit boards. However, we should never try to trap someone into breaking 3RR and should place appropriate warnings to help them avoid running afoul of it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


I have moved the workflow to WP:New pages patrol/Oldest and added the link to WP:NPP.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability of places

A quite new user has been creating here a lot of articles on places in India using a sole source, a census report. I moved four to draft space, another reviewer User:Winged Blades of Godric moved them back saying that they were sufficiently sourced. After a discussion with him about whether the source showed they met the requirement WP:GEOFEAT of being legally recognized he was of the opinion that they were but as the notability criteria exclude census tracts or similar as being non notable if the only source is a census document how can we know if the criteria are met? Another user who has created almost identical articles using only census documents for tiny villages that are part of larger municipalities such as Grivac, Knić removed my notability maintenance tag. My question is with these single census sources should do these articles meet GEOLAND ? Dom from Paris (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domdeparis (talk • contribs) 06:53, 09 July 2018 (UTC)

copy/paste move from draftified article

If a user creates an article that gets draftified Draft:2018–19 Southern Conference men's basketball season and then recreates the article in mainspace 2018–19 Southern Conference men's basketball season without addressing the reason it was draftified in the first place (no sources), do we have a deletion rationale? Does G6 apply? I'd think not, but is there another way of dealing with it? --Vexations (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Get a histmerge if they aren't the only contributor to the original. Leave them a warning about cut-and-paste moves. Add them to your mental naughty list. Natureium (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Do Pageswap/histmerge, but yeah we can't stop them from opting out of AfC unless they have a clear COI, and even then, its not exactly something you can prove so its better to just deal with it in main space. CSD/PROD/AfD/Tag as appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
On the COI front it is something you can prove if they admit to it as I had happen yesterday. But on subject I agree that our options in this case are limited - it's an awful article on a notable topic but we have no right to demand they do AfC (and I would be opposed to giving NPP that right). I have left that user two personal notes on his talk page about the rampant page creation the most recent being on Friday to which has not responded. My hope with his trove of College Basketball articles is that some other college bball fan comes along and improves those pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
After finding 1994 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships – Women's Preliminary, I'm trying WP:A10. I'll see how that goes. --Vexations (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist listing for Page Curation fixes/improvements; Yay or Nay?

It seems that there is agreement that we should put a listing in at the Community Wishlist. I'll finish up the Phab tasks over at the Suggestions page and then I'll start a discussion here about the proposal itself. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey guys and gals,
Time to talk about whether we are going to participate in the 2019 Community Wishlist survey as it is due at the end of the month if we are going to go for it. There have been a lot of views one way or the other about whether this is the right idea. The two main views are:

  1. The view that the Community Wishlist is a popularity contest for 'nice to have' comfort items, not for essential parts of MediaWiki, and that NPP is an essential feature (i.e. the view expounded by Kudpung, myself, and others). The Tech Team built these tools but made it impossible for us to maintain them (they hardcoded them into MediaWiki), so they need to keep them up with fixing buggs and adding obvious missing features/improvements.
  2. The WMF view the Community Wishlist as the correct venue for these requests (parroted by quite a few members of the WMF that if we want anything except dire bugs fixed, we need to go through the wishlist).

There are quite a few requests over at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements, which broadly fit in three categories:

  • A) bugs that inarguably should have been fixed a long time ago (e.g. AfD tagging unable to handle multiple nominations),
  • B) features that arguably are required to bring the page curation tools in line with other legacy tools (e.g. features that Twinkle has and that PC does not: so long as these features are missing, people will be reluctant to move over from Twinkle, or will not have these features available if they don't also use Twinkle). In other words; unless PC has the features we need, why bother with it?
  • C) requests that are "nice to have" features that would help considerably with the NPP workflow (e.g. Sending Feedback both to the talk page as well as the page creator, being able to change the size of the toolbar so that you can read the messages you are typing, date range filter for New Pages Feed, 'no links' filter for NewPagesFeed, etc.)

Of these categories, my view is that those in 'A' should have been done a long time ago, 'B' should be given some decent priority by the Tech Team as part of their normal operations, and that 'C' probably more represents things where the WMF is correct in saying that the Community Wishlist might be the best venue. Given this, I'd say that both '1' and '2' are correct above in some respects ('1' for 'A' and arguably also for 'B'), and that the WMF probably considers 'B' to be firmly in the Wishlist category as well as 'C'.

Given all of this, if we want to get even half of the stuff on the Suggested Improvements page, we probably do need to participate in the Community Wishlist. In line with this I have begun to clean up the Suggested Improvements page, closing a few already resolved requests, as well as filing Phab tickets for the others. If we decide to run a listing, we can just list a bunch of Phab Tickets and say "do this stuff please", so I'll get it ready in the case that we want to run it.

But I want to ask the community here: Should we put a listing into the Community Wishlist? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support

  • It would be nice if we didn't have to beg, but I don't see it happening otherwise. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It's very discouraging to think we have to beg, after all, they (the WMF) are there to serve us who provide the content and maintain it - which ultimately provides their salaries. Being salaried does not mean they are in any way superior. In fact history has clearly shown that they make huge blunders and waste enormous funds. If the community ends up rejecting the NPP system in favour of Twinkle, Wikipedia will have finally lost its credibility as a quality knowledge base - which it is already well on the way to doing. As far as the wish list is concerned, if Insertcleverphrasehere can rally his 640 New Page Reviewers together, then we can't lose on the wishlist, but be aware that the only voters on the wishlist for what NPP needs are the reviewers themselves. There won't be any support from the rest of a disinterested community -NPP is not sexy enough.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything to improve the process would be welcome. Even if in the end it proves futile, the effort should be made. Onel5969 TT me 11:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We need to clearly present to the community what improvements are needed. The community as a whole can then decide if if our concerns should be moved to the top of the list. After presenting our requests, the community can decide if NPP should be exempted from participating in the wish list because patrolling is core function. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • support Had been my thinking in earlier discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Please discuss additional ideas and improvements at the suggestions page, not here, this discussion section should be used for discussing the actual proposal. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is needed. In fact it's not clear what support or oppose votes above are for. Community Wishlist is a global voting process and is generally proposed individually. I am not aware of any special treatment for Wikiproject or a group of editors to present what they need. Any editor can present idea that relates to Page curation in their individual capacity and if it emerges among the winning 10 it will surely be acted upon. Whether we pile on support here or not its effect on how Community Wishlist survey works is zero. The only meaningful way here maybe is to first agree on one or two top priority features/bugs of the toolbar, someone then propose them and get editors to go and actually support the proposal when the voting starts. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Ammarpad, perhaps I wasn't clear: In the past there has been quite a lot of opinion from patrollers that we shouldn't have to go through the wishlist. I want to make sure that we have consensus that Going to the Community Wishlist is the right way to go. The list of features is over at the Suggestions page (although I haven't finished the Phab tickets yet), and there may need to be some additional discussion on a couple of the items to make sure we have consensus for them, but that will come later (I'll bring those items up in the next week). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I read it as: Should we, the reviewers, collectively put forward a single proposal? If you think the wishlist works well, you may want to submit an individual proposal. If you do not think the wishlist works but you still want to be heard and perhaps have a shot a fixing the page curation toolset then you might want to prepare a proposal as a group and submit it as a group. --Vexations (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This is pretty much what I was going for. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • NPP/NPR is a core function - as expressed by many - but it is not generally of interest to the broader community, unless article creators have been directly affected by its process. The unilaterall decision by Danny Horn, and imposed upon his subordinates, to force this as a Wish list issue is inappropriate, but we must go along with it as one of the avenues available until the WMF can measure by up to the responsibilities vested in their 'management' of the Wikimedia owned projects by the community. A campaign to rally the 640 reviewers should start very soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sports teams articles

I often happen across articles like 1997–98 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team when NPPing. Are articles for a specific year for a specific team for a specific sport notable? L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi L293D - The appropriate guideline is WP:NSEASONS. With programs like North Carolina, Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, etc., almost every year will be deemed notable. In fact, many folks think that every season of every DI team is notable. I don't get that from the guideline, but I've given up arguing about it. For DII and DIII teams, it definitely applies. If the 1941 Podunk Warriors had a 1-10 season, I would not consider that notable, but if they won the DIII with a record of 9-2, than that would seem to be notable as per the criteria. Hope this helps. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and my examples of elite programs were in men's basketball. If it were DI football, then the list would include teams like USC, OK, AL, etc... Softball: AZ, UCLA, OK, ASU... etc...

comment

was reverted several times by this individual Special:Contributions/Pinkbeast while trying to link orphan articles...left this note [1](BTW this is the page curation log[2])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the NPR permission

Since I was granted the new page reviewer right on 3 September, my browser has been gobbling up gigabytes of memory on English Wikipedia pages; see this VP-Tech thread for details. The issue is being tracked,[3] but has not be resolved yet. I would like this permission to be temporarily removed from my account, to see if it correlates with the memory leak or just a coincidence. — JFG talk 09:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Hi. Any updates on the memory overuse issue? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Diagnosis is ongoing at T205127. We have determined that it's unrelated to the NPR right. Accordingly, I'd like to recover this permission. @TonyBallioni: please? — JFG talk 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Changes to New Pages Feed on Sept 17 / question about bug fix

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager with the Growth team at WMF. I last posted here a couple weeks ago because upgrades to the New Pages Feed started becoming available for testing in Test Wiki. Thank you to the reviewers who have commented on the changing feed and the addition of ORES scores. I'm writing now about two things.

Releasing the first upgrades on September 17

The first of the three main improvements will be rolled out on September 17. This change will add an "AfC" button to the top of the feed, and Articles for Creation reviewers will be able to use that button to show drafts in the New Pages Feed to help their review process. This first release will leave the existing NPP workflow unchanged. The next releases will have (hopefully very positive) impacts on NPP: they will add ORES quality predictions and copyvio indicators to all pages. Click here to read more, and click here to participate in the discussion.

Question about "nominated for deletion" and "redirects" bug fix

The New Pages Feed currently has checkboxes under the "State" filter to select "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects". But it's not possible to select those without also selecting one of "Unreviewed pages" or "Reviewed pages", and when those are also selected, the nominated for deletion articles and redirects are mixed in with the much larger set of other pages. This means it is not possible to generate a list of only articles nominated for deletion, or only redirects.

This bug has been underscored by Insertcleverphrasehere, Vexations, and Barkeep49, and is filed here in Phabricator.

The fix that we have bandwidth to execute now is to move "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects" from being checkboxes under "State", to being radio buttons under "That". This means that it will be easy to produce lists of just "Nominated for deletion"/"Redirects" articles that are unreviewed or reviewed. But it means that it will not be possible to produce lists where "Nominated for deletion"/"Redirects" are combined with "normal" articles. It will also not be possible to create lists that are "Nominated for deletion"/"Redirects" that are also another button in the list under "That", such as "Were created by bots" or "Were created by blocked users". Will this break any workflows that reviewers are using now?

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion at some point where the emerging consensus appeared to be that articles that have been tagged for deletion should not be marked as "reviewed". I don't remember where that discussion took place (someone?) As I recall it, there was no definitive outcome of that discussion, and reviewers may have developed different workflows. I for one, would welcome the change because I think it makes more sense from a UX perspective. I am a fan of software that is both process and policy-agnostic; tools should not dictate workflows or implement policy. I don't think the proposed change does that, so I'm happy to support. Vexations (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Vexations: If you find that I would love to see it. In my own process I will mark all articles nominated for AfD reviewed because one way or another a decision is going to be made. I tend not to mark CSD or PROD articles but will if I'm then willing to watch it and nominate it for deletion myself if the CSD or PROD doesn't go through. If this is against consensus I would like to know to change my practices. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
At the current time, should pages marked for deletion be marked as patrolled? And if so, is it limited to CSD, PROD, etc.? So far, I've been going with the complex flow chart, which says that a page that is marked for deletion in any way, including copyvios, attack pages, vandalism, etc. should be marked as patrolled, but I'm willing to change if necessary.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 23:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there was a (weak) consensus in that conversation that articles tagged for deletion should be marked as reviewed, as otherwise they constantly come up for other reviewers when clicking 'next'. For AfDs, the tag can't be removed, so there is no reason not to mark them as reviewed, and a decision is going to be made one way or the other. That being said, if you know you aren't going to be checking back on it, you might leave CSDed or PRODed articles for someone else to review (someone that will check on it to make sure that the tag doesn't get removed improperly). Also, adding maintenance tags in addition to nominating for deletion is good if you don't plan on checking back on it. There are some people who review articles and redirects at the same time, so the change might get in their way. I also don't like the idea that an article would disappear from the new page feed, even if unreviewed, just because it has a deletion tag on it. Still, I don't think it would be the end of the world, and would probably be better than what we have now. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I personally would support marking pages as reviewed when they are tagged for deletion, particularly due to what you said about constantly coming up for other reviewers. However, it is true the majority of articles that come through the feed aren't and don't need to be marked for deletion, due to ACPERM (honestly, I can't imagine what NPP was like when any registered user could create articles), so I don't think this would be a huge problem. I do usually like to put any articles that I mark as reviewed on my watchlist, so I would probably want to mark pages I tagged for deletion as reviewed as long as I don't think it would be beneficial to have another patroller take a look at the page and check over everything.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that fix is a highly desirable and in fact reflects the way I've tried to use it and thus would support it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @MMiller (WMF): I'm not sure I understand. If this is implemented, will articles that are tagged for deletion no longer appear in the "default" list of unreviewed articles? (Because I think that's the behaviour we really need.)
The former consensus that articles should be reviewed when tagged for deletion was predicated on this bug, so if it's fixed we will need to revisit it. As many editors have said in the past, relying on a single reviewer to check up on CSDs and PRODs creates a loophole that bad-but-not-CSDable articles can slip through. If these articles no longer appear in the feed while they are tagged, there is no reason to keep that loophole open. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
If the new situation will be that deleted tagged articles are put in the other category and won't come up when scrolling with the 'next page' button, then I agree that the current practice of marking deleted articles as reviewed should be revisited (as there would be no reason for that practice any more). In fact, we should also probably modify the page curation tools to not automatically tag articles as reviewed when tagged for deletion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this and the phab task again, I don't think the WMF have understood that this is the bug. I'll try and explain on phabricator. – Joe (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it now, it seems that bug was fixed at some point. Unchecking "nominated for deletion" removes them from the feed and the "next page" button respects your feed setting. MMiller (WMF) whatever happens this behaviour (which honestly was broken for a long time, though I can't prove it now!) should be retained.
So getting back to the original question, I think the following states are useful for normal NPP workflows (in rough order of importance):
  1. Unreviewed articles excluding redirects and xxDs – for most reviewers
  2. Redirects only – for redirect-reviewers
  3. xxDs only – for patrolling admins
Combined lists of unreviewed articles including redirects/xxDs aren't particularly useful to anyone. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Joe Roe (and Vexations, Barkeep49, and Insertcleverphrasehere) for laying this out -- this makes substantially more sense now. Here's what happened. We started pursuing the question of it being impossible to create a list of only articles nominated for deletion or only redirects. As we were looking into it, we realized that the "Nominated for deletion" checkbox wasn't working, causing it to be impossible to exclude those articles from the "Unreviewed" list. We didn't yet know that this was a longstanding bug that reviewers had been working around, and we partially fixed it last week in this Phab task. Since last week, new articles nominated for deletion have been being filtered correctly. This week, we will complete the fix by running a script to correct the statuses of all the other articles in the feed that are nominated for deletion. This means that it will now be possible to exclude articles nominated for deletion by simply leaving that box unchecked, whether they are marked "Reviewed" or "Unreviewed". I apologize for not giving advance notice of that fix -- I didn't know that it was a longstanding major issue that affects workflows.
With the additional change of making "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects" into buttons under "That", instead of checkboxes under "Show", it would then be possible to create lists of only articles nominated for deletion or only redirects. That is in this Phab task. But now that the issue I discussed in the previous paragraph is fixed, is this still desired?
The details on that additional change are:
  • The checkboxes for "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects" would no longer be under "Show". Instead, they would be radio buttons under "That".
  • All articles would still either be "Unreviewed" or "Reviewed".
  • By default, "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects" would be excluded from the feed, regardless of whether they are "Unreviewed" or "Reviewed".
  • When the "Nominated for deletion" or "Redirects" buttons are selected, the feed would show only articles of that status, that are also "Unreviewed" and/or "Reviewed, according to how those two checkboxes are set.
  • It will not be possible to create a list of "Unreviewed" articles that includes "Nominated for deletion" or "Redirects".
  • The only way to review redirects will be by making the New Pages Feed only show redirects.
  • Those two new radio buttons will therefore be following slightly different logic than the others, such as "Were created by bots", which constrains the feed when selected, but includes bot articles when unselected. In this case, when the "Nominated for deletion" or "Redirects" buttons are unselected, they will be excluded from the feed. There are likely more intuitive and thorough ways to redesign the New Pages Feed so that all possible combinations are available, but the team does not currently have bandwidth to make such a major change.
With all that said, I think the two questions remaining are:
1. Given that the "Nominated for deletion" bug is fixed, should we still change the behavior of the "Nominated for deletion" and "Redirects" checkboxes to make it possible to create lists containing only those types of articles?
2. If we do make that change, will it be okay that it will not be possible to create a list of all "Unreviewed" or "Reviewed" articles that also contain "Nominated for deletion" or "Redirect" articles?
-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@MMiller (WMF): Thanks for the update. My answers are a strong yes for Q1, Q2 isn't ideal but I think a better state of affairs than the status quo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@MMiller (WMF): It isn't ideal. I still don't understand why the feed can't be designed to have the buttons under 'show' just work like the "unreviewed" and "reviewed" buttons (all you have said is that you "don't have the bandwidth for it", but that doesn't make a lot of sense). Ideally we would have #1 without #2. I know that some people will not like #2, because some reviewers review redirects and articles at the same time in the same feed. If you can't change the functionality of the "redirect" and "nominated for deletion" under 'show', can't you leave the current buttons under 'show' and add buttons under 'that' so that we can have both types of functionality? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MMiller (WMF). It all makes more sense now. I always thought the nominated for deletion bug was in phabricators, because I'd been misreading phab:T169244. Oops!
It seems several editors would find Q1 useful and I don't think Q2 is a big deal. There's no good reason to use unreviewed+xxD anymore and those people using unreviewed+redirects are a) in a minority and b) can adapt their workflow quite easily by just opening the feed in two tabs. – Joe (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Vexations -- it's been a couple weeks, but I'd like to revisit this with a new proposal that we on the team think will be a more flexible fit. See the messy mockup below (that I made by slicing up an screenshot and typing on it; nothing fancy). Here's what happening in there:

  • We separate the "reviewed/unreviewed" dimension from the type of page. We do this by adding a new section called "Type" that has checkboxes for "Nominated for deletion", "Redirects", and "All others" (we would need a better word for this last type -- I am trying to say "normal" pages).
  • Then a reviewer could generate any of the 21 possible combinations. For instance, by checking "Unreviewed", "Nominated for deletion", and "All others", a reviewer would have a list of all pages, including those nominated for deletion, that are unreviewed. Or by checking "Unreviewed", "Reviewed", and "All others", a reviewer would have a list of all pages, excluding redirects and nominated for deletion, that are any review status.
  • At least one box must be checked in both those top two sections.
  • All the things in the "That" section could be layered on top.

Here is the mockup:

A mockup of an idea for improving the New Pages Feed.

What do you think? -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a really good implementation. Thank you and the team for your work MMiller (WMF). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This looks great. Thanks very much for implementing it in a way that didn't need serious compromises one way or the other. This looks like it will support existing workflows. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks very much MMiller. – Joe (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Vexations -- we've coded up this change, and it is slated to be in English Wikipedia on Thursday. We're first going to deploy it to Test Wiki on Tuesday (tomorrow) so that you can try it before it is rolled out, and I'm hoping you can take a few minutes on Tuesday or Wednesday to make sure we implemented it correctly. The changes should be on Test Wiki at about 21:00 UTC on Tuesday. Thanks, and please post here with your thoughts! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I will be off Wikipedia the rest of the week so I can't test but again want to express my thanks to the team for working on this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Just taking a look now. It seems to work as I hoped it would. I see only two articles that have been nominated for deletion in the dataset, so it takes a while to see them in the feed with both "Nominated for deletion" and "All others" checked, but now I can see only articles nominated for deletion, only articles that have not been nominated for deletion and both. Still thinking about an alternative for "All others". Thanks, --Vexations (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vexations. We're going to roll out this change to English Wikipedia tomorrow, as I announced below. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe, Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Vexations -- this change is now in production, so everything should be as we planned! Let me know if you see anything to the contrary. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and it looks good. I'll let others investigate in more detail as I have little time online at present (currently on holiday in the USA). Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I have had a quick look myself. Overall I think you and the team have done good work. Thank you. One small quibble. I clicked on the first article I could find Margareth Angelina which as it would have it didn't have the trash icon and sure enough someone had removed the speedy delete tag. So the icon was correct but the feed it was in wasn't correct. Any chance that could be fixed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: thanks for noticing that. We see the same issue, and we're putting together a fix today in this task. I'll let you know when it's deployed. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: this issue is now fixed. Let me know if you see anything else! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MMiller (WMF) - looks good. On a related note is there a reason that the RfD template isn't recognized as a deletion by the queue? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: are you referring to when a page has the AfD template? If so, I think we noticed the same thing yesterday, filed here, which we will plan to fix. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@MMiller (WMF): What I'm talking about is use of the Template:RFD as can be seen on Unicode 31. The page shows up in the feed because it's no longer a redirect which is good but ideally it would be thought of as a deletion for purposes of sorting in the queue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: okay, I understand now. I see the reasoning by which an RfD would be considered related to deletion. I think this is more of a question of policy than a technical one. If the NPP community decides that RfD should be included in the feed in that way, we could probably alter the logic to accommodate it. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Collection of independent scripts to bundle into a 'NPR helper tool'

While the page curation toolset is nice and user friendly in a lot of ways, it is also difficult to fix, and by virtue of being hard-coded into Mediawiki, it is difficult to modify or add/remove features. It has been pointed out that pretty much all of the tasks that can be completed by the page curation tool can be completed by various user scripts and gadgets, which in most cases are less buggy, and in a lot of ways can be more user friendly. For me personally, it has taken me quite some time to collect various scripts together that give me all the tools I need for new page reviewing, and it would be much more convenient to have them collected in a single cohesive toolset (this was I imagine the original vision of the page curation software-Kudpung will probably know more).

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I think we should have a bit of collaboration to see what features we would like this combined tool to have, highlight existing scripts and gadgets that we already have, and identify sub-par scripts or areas where we are reliant on the Page Curation software. We also need to make a decision whether we want this helper tool to duplicate or to supplement the existing page curation toolset. I've had a stab below at identifying scripts which duplicate existing functionality of the PC tools, as well as scripts which fill in gaps or are generally useful during new page reviewing.

Existing page curation functionality and scripts which duplicate this:

  • Metadata for this page: Having the page history and basic creator stats available at the click of a button (without having to navigate away from the page is very useful, and I'm not aware of a script which duplicates this functionality. Moremenu actually provides a ton more data than this, such as page logs etc, but these links all require navigating away from the page.
  • Wikilove: I'm sure there are some scripts that provide this sort of functionality, but probably require that you visit the user's talk page. I'm currently not aware of them, but this would be a useful feature. Welcome messages at the click of a button would also be useful.
  • Message author: There are a number of issues with the existing page curation messaging system. The inability to distinguish the real creator of the current content (vs accidentally sending it to the creator of an expanded redirect), the need to un-review/re-review to send a message, the hard-coded passive-aggressive non-customisable message templates, inability to also send feedback to the talk page of the article as well, etc. This could be significantly improved and currently isn't going to happen in the vanilla PC tool unless we win the holiday popularity contest.
  • Maintenance tagging: This functionality is duplicated by the Twinkle gadget, and while I prefer the interface of the page curation tool for tagging, twinkle has some additional options (such as all the redirect tags that aren't in the PC tool at all). The page curation tool also has some additional options that Twinkle doesn't, such as the ability to simultaneously send a message to the author when adding a maintenance tag, which is quite useful.
  • Deletion tagging: This functionality is much better in Twinkle in my opinion. While there are deletion tag logs for the PC tool (where it lumps CSD, AfD and PROD together), twinkle has CSD and PROD user space logs that are much better IMO, and there is always the AFD stats tool to track AfD nominations. There are a number of significant bugs with the PC tools with regard to deletion or missing features, such as the [to correctly parse 2nd or third nominations] (it just posts the nomination to the original AfD page), or decline CSD/PRODs from other reviewers/editors (Twinkle has this), or Sort AfDs when nominating (twinkle does this, and User:Enterprisey/delsort.js is also a useful tool for this).
  • The 'Next' button: To my knowledge, this button tracks your sort preferences at Special:NewPagesFeed, then shows you the next article in line (earlier or later depending on whether you sort by youngest or oldest first). There is no script that duplicates this feature, but it might be able to be implemented by a bodge which just finds the button on the page curation tools and clicks it; an experienced coder will know more.

Missing features that the Page curation doesn't have, but which is required/advantageous for new page review (and scripts that fill these roles):

  • Moving to draft; has become more-and-more a core NPR function, the excellent tool by Evad37 currently fills this role, which is customisable in a number of different ways.
  • Categories; Hotcat is in my view essential for NPR, and should be turned on by default for all reviewers. While it isn't our job, technically, and you can just put an uncategorised tag on the article, Often you will know several good tags to put on it.
  • Page logs/User Logs; MoreMenu provides links to all these, and give you info about who previously 'reviewed' an article, etc. You can also look up various user logs in the moremenu options as well.
  • Copyright violation tool: The PC toolset currently doesn't have this functionality, though copypatrol is going to be added to the New page feed next month in a limited way. MoreMenu provides a link to the Earwig Copyright violation checking tool, though it is a bit of a pain to navigate to, and User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in the 'tools' section, which I slightly rewrote to move this link so that it is in the same place as the other NPP tools and opens in a new tab rather than the current window: User:Insertcleverphrasehere/copyvios.js. A link to this should also be included prominently in any NPR bundle tool (ideally without having to navigate away from the page, or automated in some other way). I have made a script request for an automated or semi-autmoated copyright violation tool here.
  • Revision Deletion for copyvios: In the same vein, requesting revision deletion is not part of the PC tool at present. User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel seems to do this perfectly, but is new and might need still need testing.
  • Previous Deletions: A huge oversight with the current tool is that it doesn't tell you when the page has previously been deleted, or that it was previously taken to AfD. Checking these manually for each article is tiresome. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js adds links that appear next to the title when either of these apply, and some kind of functionality like this should be added to any NPR bundle (ideally without having to navigate away from the page).
  • Wikiproject templates: Adding Wikiproject templates to the talk pages of articles is pretty useful as part of the NPR process, and while all reviewers don't do it, I think it is advised as it has the potential to draw editors from various wikiprojects to help out with expanding/fixing articles. User:Evad37/rater provides this functionality.
  • Stub tagging: Hot off the press, we have a hierarchy search based stub tag adding tool: User:Danski454/stubsearch.js.
  • Vandalism/Page protection/user warnings: Other 'Twinkle stuff' which is commonly useful to New Page Reviewers.
  • Fix bare URLS/duplicate refs: I've found MoreMenu's link to Refill to be very useful when I come across an article that has lots of bare URL refs, or references that are copied multiple times (instead of named and cited). This not only improves the article, but can make the list of references easier to parse.
  • Easy search for sources: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/googleTitle.js adds a nice link next to the article title which allows you to instantly search google for sources.
  • Superlinks: User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks is an insane tool that we all need to have installed. It allows to to view page logs, history, and talk pages without having to navigate away from the page, and also includes a link to the NPP Flowchart that displays in a scrollable window onscreen (or the AfC flowchart if reviewing a draft). Largely covers the same stuff as moremenu, but in a much more convinient form.

I'm certain that I've missed quite a few things, but perhaps this can start the ball rolling with regard to discussing the features/scripts that we would want to have in an 'NPR helper tool' (or what features we would prefer to leave out). If anyone has any other suggestions for useful scripts that should be included, please mention them! Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thank you for this compilation. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Gadgets
Core User Scripts
Other Scripts

Discussion of 'NPR helper tool'

Please discuss here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I think there are a lot of advantages to having additional functionality as well as ALL of the existing PC functionality in the script bundle, rather than just supplementing the existing features of the PC tool. Some might like this or not, but non-reviewers would be able to install the bundle and use it to practice new page reviewing. Non-NPR reviewers could mark them as 'patrolled', which shows up in the patrol log for that user, but the page won't be marked as 'reviewed' or appear in the user's review log unless they have the NPR userright, so learners could safely practice without risk of pages falling through the cracks). This would help address some current issues with applicants being turned down for not having any review experience (it is currently a bit of a chicken and egg situation as applicants do not get a chance to use the page curation tools prior to requesting the NPR userright). Additionally, having buggy/incomplete features in the PC toolset is bad, it is better to just discontinue it altogether if we can duplicate the existing functions without the bugs. I hate the idea that we basically throw out all the work that the WMF has done for the page curation toolset, but I don't see any other practical way forward with those tools. Even if we were to win the Christmas popularity contest, you can guarantee that we won't get half of what we ask for, and we will be begging for bugfixes for years. Of course, someone actually has to be willing to put in some work coding such a tool, which is not a guarantee, but I think there is WP:NODEADLINE, and could perhaps be done by a team of editors talented at coding. We could always put in a request at the Wishlist for the WMF to re-create the page curation tools as a script (implementing existing scripts as appropriate), then however they invariably fuck up, at least we can then fix it ourselves. Regardless of which direction we want to go in, clarifying what we want/do not want in our NPR tools is essential. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I use a lot of the scripts listed above. I used to have them installed via my common.ja but I just bundled them in a little suite of NPP tools at User:Vexations/scripts/NPP.js I suppose we could create something similar here, at say Wikipedia:New pages patrol/scripts/NPP suite.js? Vexations (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vexations: That's the quick and dirty solution for sure. We have a few options though, depending on what we really want/need/can get. I'm sure that someone talented with coding could do a little better by getting all of them to populate a single toolbar item. Making a single popup window tool that acts as a hub for elements of the various other scripts is probably ideal, as well as some development of a few missing pieces, but would take considerably more work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this initiative and the substantial work that seems to have gone into it. This is quite timely. I admit to being quite cheesed off by having been referred to the Wishlist for improvements of the tool, with all the immense delays, blackboxery and popularity contest aggravation that entails. If a user-curated bundle of equal or greater functionality could be constructed, that would be most welcome. - In your list above you appear to have covered all the desirable features that would occur to me. Can't really weigh in on the technical side; toolbars are nice for the one-click monkey in us, of course. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone, I can't remember who ATM, said that if Curation Toolbar 2.0 didn't have keyboard shrotcuts they'd make a script. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... the keyboard shortcuts on Evad37's WP:RATER are the freaking bomb. I can add multiple wikiprojects to a page and only have to use my mouse of a single click at the end to confirm. Very convenient and saves a lot of time. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Handy, cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly what we wanted. Thanks Enterprisey! I've added it to the list above. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Been playing around a bit in my sandbox, and that script works great. It will definitely prove to be useful for my NPPing. Thank you!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm in the habit of tagging the author of non-English articles on their talk page with :
==English please==
{{subst:contrib-XX1}} ~~~~
where I manually enter the language code where the example has XX, using AutoHotKey. I think that would be a useful part of a full toolset if it were scripted. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Hmm, I see what you are saying here. I think that a NPP bundle would be relying on Twinkle for the majority of tagging, so it would probably be difficult to code a custom message to the page creator for this specific tag. It might be worth requesting this directly at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, or at [4]. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, given how the comminity wishlist discussion is shaping up, I think we should regard an 'NPR helper tool' to essentially be a bundle of other essential/useful scripts to complement Page Curation, rather than a straight alternative. We will see which of these are needed after the Page Curation tools are worked on (assuming that we do well in the Wishlist). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_27&oldid=866437041"