Documentation for testing of user warnings in Twinkle. See more notes and working rewrites for Twinkle deletion notices here.
We also ran a query to see how many Twinkle user talk edits there had been in recent months. According to this query, there have been 161,934 Twinkle messages posted on user talk pages between the beginning of July and October 19th 2011. Next, we intend to run the same query for Huggle and Igloo edits and to count total user talk page edits during the same time period, in order to find out which of these tools is used most frequently on user talk pages, and what percentage of all user talk page messages are made using these tools.
In order to figure out which templates to focus on in our A/B experiment with Twinkle templates, we first need to know which Twinkle templates are most used most frequently on user talk pages. To gather this sample, we queried the Enwiki database for a random sample of 1000 user talk page revisions made using Twinkle (identified by ([[WP:TW|TW]]) which is populated in Twinkle edit comments by default) since October 2010. Then we grabbed the whole list of user warning templates used by Twinkle and queried the API to get the text of each of these revisions. Then we pulled out all the template names from the HTML comments in the template messages and counted up the ones that appeared on the official list of Twinkle user warning templates.
Below is the list of the most-used Twinkle user warning templates from the last year. Should give us a good start to narrowing down which templates to update when we run the Twinkle study.
twinkle user warning template | number of uses in random sample of 1000 recent Twinkle user talk edits |
{{ Uw-vandalism1}} | 226 |
{{ Uw-vandalism2}} | 124 |
{{ Uw-vandalism3}} | 115 |
{{ Uw-vandalism4}} | 57 |
{{ Uw-block}} | 43 |
{{ Uw-unsourced1}} | 41 |
{{ Uw-test1}} | 40 |
{{ Uw-delete1}} | 37 |
{{ Uw-spam1}} | 28 |
{{ Uw-delete2}} | 25 |
{{ Uw-vandalism4im}} | 23 |
{{ Uw-error1}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-speedy1}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-vblock}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-speedy2}} | 15 |
{{ Uw-unsourced2}} | 14 |
{{ Uw-unsourced3}} | 14 |
{{ Uw-editsummary}} | 13 |
{{ Uw-spam2}} | 13 |
{{ Uw-test2}} | 12 |
The final counts delivered through this method is not completely accurate, because any other, previous messages on the user talk pages these revisions were pulled from which ALSO used one of the listed user warning templates (whether or not it was left using Twinkle), will also be counted. There may not be an easy way around this using the API Query. There is a way to pull up just the text of a single diff by passing non-Query API arguments, but we couldn't make that method work this time. However, this count is probably pretty close. And after all, any user warning template that is in active use is a good candidate for A/B testing, whether or not it's used solely by Twinklers.
General principles we are shooting for...
The templates tested were:
Now that the templates are finished running, things we want to know are...
{{
Z82}}
or whichever it was. Secondly that was back in December - you need to ask for feedback much faster than that. As far as the wording goes, I probably didn't read it, I just see the template, and generally wonder why people don't leave a proper message about the page, if it actually needs deleting I will do usually it on the spot, otherwise I can explain why it doesn't and we can avoid an unnecessary deletion debate. The first line is a bit irritating to regular editors "Hello, Rich Farmbrough, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!" The phrase "some editors are discussing" implies that something heavy is going down. "I have started a discussion" would be better. (Or "an editor has started...." ideally the nominating editor should be leaving the message.) The rest is pretty good, but targeted at newbies which may or may not irritate old hands.
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC).To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{ proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also:
- Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
- Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a {{ Deprod}} tag on their user talk page.
- Add or modify an {{ Old prod full}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past proposed deletion candidates for easy tracking.
- Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised.
I was asked to comment with regards to my experience with the messages received in November, which you can see here, which were combined with these edits to the article, and the resulting AFD was a definite keep. As you can imagine, this use of Twinkle doesnt reflect well on Twinkle. The use of CSD->PROD->AFD without discussing the matter is rude. I didn't care what the messages said; I knew I was being templated so I zone out and dont read the message (sorry!;-)). Being templated doesnt bother me much, but I was annoyed that the templater didnt need to specify a reason to CSD and PROD an article which had been in Wikipedia since May 2007 - over four years. It was obviously not an uncontroversial deletion, so it should have gone from CSD to AFD. There was an obvious merge target, so there was no need for an AFD either. A one-to-one discussion, maybe followed by a third opinion, should have resolved the matter to everyones satisfaction. John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Um...the message I got happened to be for an article I created a long time ago on a non-notable topic, so I didn't exactly read the message. Rather, I saw the note, saw "deletion", thought "haha! I remember that! I can't believe I actually made an article on that! Non-notable indeed!" and decided to just let it decay and get deleted by someone else, although I could easily have deleted it myself. So, that said, I'm glad I got a message, but I didn't exactly read it! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on something that has something to do with communication. Well, here's a communication issue. What is it about? Well, templates, and how they look, it seems. But what do they look like then? And what alternatives are there? Did I ever receive one? If so, when? And the templates are AfD and PROD. I guess the first stands for Article for Deletion. PROD I haven't a clue. Of course I could look that up, but if you want more feedback it would be a good idea to be a bit more helpful in that respect. I have other things to do, but I'd like to help. If I don't have to do all the figuring out. Oh, and it appears to be related to Twinkle, which is something one has to install to use. But afaik I haven't installed it, so how can I comment on it? DirkvdM ( talk) 07:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I very much like the automatic notification if I inadvertently forget to check a possible disambiguation (ie Master/ Hackney Bashereyre ( talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As memory serves, I have only been involved in one AfD/PROD during my entire WP career, so I have no standard of comparison. Incidentally, that occurred in October 2011, not November. I PRODded Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II as being non-notable. The community decided to keep it, although it is a pig's breakfast that no one will bother to work on.
As for whatever template I used for the purpose...I didn't pay any mind to it. To me, it was just another case of WP bureaucracy to be lumbered through.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not used these templates, nor have much had articles which have had these used on them. I agree with those above who like the idea of less bite, but I also agree that these templates should prominently feature the process and policy pages as an introduction to newbies. Its possible in an attempt to oversimplify something that one winds up just watering things down too much. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was templated three times a few months ago after creating a substandard stub (which was quickly improved by other editors). I recall distinctly being annoyed that the first to propose deletion had not bothered even to google the subject - but have no recollection of how I perceived the template per se. I guess the content outweighs the form by that much... I know that's not what you are looking for, but how about a script that posts back on the nominator's talk: "you have just proposed that someone else's work should be obliterated. Have you bothered to check if this is the right thing to do?" And since you are worried about the tone of the message - "Thank you and have a nice day" Jd2718 ( talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
On Feb 17 I received a message on my talk page which started with these words: Hi Ottawa. In December you got either an AfD or PROD notification...
FYI I get an AFD or a PROD notification just about every other day (or so it seems) - it is getting to the point where I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to make long-lasting contributions to Wikipedia. I seem to be running around trying to put out fires constantly.
So sorry, I cannot help with whatever change happened to the format of the AFD/PROD message back in December. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As a number of people have said above, the real problem is of course the deletion process--which desperately needs fixing so the whole thing works in a friendlier direction with more emphasis on keeping content and contributors, while at the same time removing what shouldn't be articles. However, this means fixing the general attitude of many experienced Wikipedians to deletion in general. That isn't going to be quick. Changing the templates can be quick, and can be seen as a first place to start,
The new templates are much better, but as has also been remarked above, they don't give a sufficient sense of urgency. It's very difficult to give a sense of urgency without being unfriendly. I'll give it a try in a little while. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Documentation for testing of user warnings in Twinkle. See more notes and working rewrites for Twinkle deletion notices here.
We also ran a query to see how many Twinkle user talk edits there had been in recent months. According to this query, there have been 161,934 Twinkle messages posted on user talk pages between the beginning of July and October 19th 2011. Next, we intend to run the same query for Huggle and Igloo edits and to count total user talk page edits during the same time period, in order to find out which of these tools is used most frequently on user talk pages, and what percentage of all user talk page messages are made using these tools.
In order to figure out which templates to focus on in our A/B experiment with Twinkle templates, we first need to know which Twinkle templates are most used most frequently on user talk pages. To gather this sample, we queried the Enwiki database for a random sample of 1000 user talk page revisions made using Twinkle (identified by ([[WP:TW|TW]]) which is populated in Twinkle edit comments by default) since October 2010. Then we grabbed the whole list of user warning templates used by Twinkle and queried the API to get the text of each of these revisions. Then we pulled out all the template names from the HTML comments in the template messages and counted up the ones that appeared on the official list of Twinkle user warning templates.
Below is the list of the most-used Twinkle user warning templates from the last year. Should give us a good start to narrowing down which templates to update when we run the Twinkle study.
twinkle user warning template | number of uses in random sample of 1000 recent Twinkle user talk edits |
{{ Uw-vandalism1}} | 226 |
{{ Uw-vandalism2}} | 124 |
{{ Uw-vandalism3}} | 115 |
{{ Uw-vandalism4}} | 57 |
{{ Uw-block}} | 43 |
{{ Uw-unsourced1}} | 41 |
{{ Uw-test1}} | 40 |
{{ Uw-delete1}} | 37 |
{{ Uw-spam1}} | 28 |
{{ Uw-delete2}} | 25 |
{{ Uw-vandalism4im}} | 23 |
{{ Uw-error1}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-speedy1}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-vblock}} | 17 |
{{ Uw-speedy2}} | 15 |
{{ Uw-unsourced2}} | 14 |
{{ Uw-unsourced3}} | 14 |
{{ Uw-editsummary}} | 13 |
{{ Uw-spam2}} | 13 |
{{ Uw-test2}} | 12 |
The final counts delivered through this method is not completely accurate, because any other, previous messages on the user talk pages these revisions were pulled from which ALSO used one of the listed user warning templates (whether or not it was left using Twinkle), will also be counted. There may not be an easy way around this using the API Query. There is a way to pull up just the text of a single diff by passing non-Query API arguments, but we couldn't make that method work this time. However, this count is probably pretty close. And after all, any user warning template that is in active use is a good candidate for A/B testing, whether or not it's used solely by Twinklers.
General principles we are shooting for...
The templates tested were:
Now that the templates are finished running, things we want to know are...
{{
Z82}}
or whichever it was. Secondly that was back in December - you need to ask for feedback much faster than that. As far as the wording goes, I probably didn't read it, I just see the template, and generally wonder why people don't leave a proper message about the page, if it actually needs deleting I will do usually it on the spot, otherwise I can explain why it doesn't and we can avoid an unnecessary deletion debate. The first line is a bit irritating to regular editors "Hello, Rich Farmbrough, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!" The phrase "some editors are discussing" implies that something heavy is going down. "I have started a discussion" would be better. (Or "an editor has started...." ideally the nominating editor should be leaving the message.) The rest is pretty good, but targeted at newbies which may or may not irritate old hands.
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC).To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{ proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also:
- Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
- Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a {{ Deprod}} tag on their user talk page.
- Add or modify an {{ Old prod full}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past proposed deletion candidates for easy tracking.
- Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised.
I was asked to comment with regards to my experience with the messages received in November, which you can see here, which were combined with these edits to the article, and the resulting AFD was a definite keep. As you can imagine, this use of Twinkle doesnt reflect well on Twinkle. The use of CSD->PROD->AFD without discussing the matter is rude. I didn't care what the messages said; I knew I was being templated so I zone out and dont read the message (sorry!;-)). Being templated doesnt bother me much, but I was annoyed that the templater didnt need to specify a reason to CSD and PROD an article which had been in Wikipedia since May 2007 - over four years. It was obviously not an uncontroversial deletion, so it should have gone from CSD to AFD. There was an obvious merge target, so there was no need for an AFD either. A one-to-one discussion, maybe followed by a third opinion, should have resolved the matter to everyones satisfaction. John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Um...the message I got happened to be for an article I created a long time ago on a non-notable topic, so I didn't exactly read the message. Rather, I saw the note, saw "deletion", thought "haha! I remember that! I can't believe I actually made an article on that! Non-notable indeed!" and decided to just let it decay and get deleted by someone else, although I could easily have deleted it myself. So, that said, I'm glad I got a message, but I didn't exactly read it! Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on something that has something to do with communication. Well, here's a communication issue. What is it about? Well, templates, and how they look, it seems. But what do they look like then? And what alternatives are there? Did I ever receive one? If so, when? And the templates are AfD and PROD. I guess the first stands for Article for Deletion. PROD I haven't a clue. Of course I could look that up, but if you want more feedback it would be a good idea to be a bit more helpful in that respect. I have other things to do, but I'd like to help. If I don't have to do all the figuring out. Oh, and it appears to be related to Twinkle, which is something one has to install to use. But afaik I haven't installed it, so how can I comment on it? DirkvdM ( talk) 07:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I very much like the automatic notification if I inadvertently forget to check a possible disambiguation (ie Master/ Hackney Bashereyre ( talk) 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As memory serves, I have only been involved in one AfD/PROD during my entire WP career, so I have no standard of comparison. Incidentally, that occurred in October 2011, not November. I PRODded Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II as being non-notable. The community decided to keep it, although it is a pig's breakfast that no one will bother to work on.
As for whatever template I used for the purpose...I didn't pay any mind to it. To me, it was just another case of WP bureaucracy to be lumbered through.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I have not used these templates, nor have much had articles which have had these used on them. I agree with those above who like the idea of less bite, but I also agree that these templates should prominently feature the process and policy pages as an introduction to newbies. Its possible in an attempt to oversimplify something that one winds up just watering things down too much. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I was templated three times a few months ago after creating a substandard stub (which was quickly improved by other editors). I recall distinctly being annoyed that the first to propose deletion had not bothered even to google the subject - but have no recollection of how I perceived the template per se. I guess the content outweighs the form by that much... I know that's not what you are looking for, but how about a script that posts back on the nominator's talk: "you have just proposed that someone else's work should be obliterated. Have you bothered to check if this is the right thing to do?" And since you are worried about the tone of the message - "Thank you and have a nice day" Jd2718 ( talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
On Feb 17 I received a message on my talk page which started with these words: Hi Ottawa. In December you got either an AfD or PROD notification...
FYI I get an AFD or a PROD notification just about every other day (or so it seems) - it is getting to the point where I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to make long-lasting contributions to Wikipedia. I seem to be running around trying to put out fires constantly.
So sorry, I cannot help with whatever change happened to the format of the AFD/PROD message back in December. Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
As a number of people have said above, the real problem is of course the deletion process--which desperately needs fixing so the whole thing works in a friendlier direction with more emphasis on keeping content and contributors, while at the same time removing what shouldn't be articles. However, this means fixing the general attitude of many experienced Wikipedians to deletion in general. That isn't going to be quick. Changing the templates can be quick, and can be seen as a first place to start,
The new templates are much better, but as has also been remarked above, they don't give a sufficient sense of urgency. It's very difficult to give a sense of urgency without being unfriendly. I'll give it a try in a little while. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)