Wikipedia talk:Page Curation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

User Auto-patrol[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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)