Wikipedia talk:Page Curation

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 7 sections are present.

My two cents

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

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

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

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

Template:Wikify deprecated

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

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

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

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

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

Welcoming newbies

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

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

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

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

NOINDEX and the feed's default ordering

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

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

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

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

Tutorial

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

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

Most common tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick Mac update

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

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

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

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

Auto reviewed and Redirect

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

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

Curation Toolbar absent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page messages: use first person

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

Thanks for creating Example, ExampleUser!

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

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

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

Learn more about page curation.

to:

Hi ExampleUser!

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

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

To reply, leave a comment on my talk page.

[my usual signature]

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