![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I worry that I expend effort giving helpful feedback to the creator of an article, only to find suggestions pertinent to the article itself are simply lost and overlooked on a user's own talk page. Some editors have no inclination to act on improvement suggestions. Here's an example of one set of my comments left here and responded to here. The salient comment back to me being I'm afraid that I have neither the skills, time nor inclination to expand on these articles.""
So, if our Page Curation tool had the option to "Add copy of comments to article's talk page" this would enable other editors to see those constructive suggestions and hopefully act on them themselves. Many short feedback comments are clearly of no relevance to the article, but where they are, it's a great shame for them to be unavailable, and a lot more work to have to paste them in directly. Maybe accompany the feedback with a statement like this:
Any thoughts? Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought the same, and I was going to post this in suggestions section.
On a few rare instances, I have seen the creator's account going inactive after creating an article with a good subject (not about organisation, or any type of COI).
In any case, it always felt wrong to give tips regarding an article to one particular editor.
I think, the first note should go to creators talk page like it does now. And like
Nick suggested, a copy of this note, with a little difference in automated content, should go on the the article talkpage. The tool already has an option, while marking the page reviewed, a message can be sent only to the creator. Other than that, all the messages through tool should go on talk pages of the article, and the creator. That would also be helpful to spread a word around about NPR flag. —usernamekiran
(talk)
15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I am placing this notice here since it has been discussed at this project talk space before. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This conversation has been split from the section above
Oh bloody hell. On a separate note, I'm going through
this unfathomably helpful feed and I was wondering if anybody is willing to provide me with a second opinion on the notability of these musical pieces. Thanks if you can!
DrStrauss
talk
20:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I rarely touch music articles because NMUSIC is incomprehensible and overly complex for anyone who isn't into music. I'd support some form of simplification of it if anyone who is knowledgeable enough were to work on it *cough* Ritchie333*cough*. This is an area where we could use more reviewers who know the topic area well enough to make a judgement on the music criteria. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought the 250 character limit had been resolved Was I wrong?
So, I've just crafted a long and very detailed reply to an editor whilst tagging an article that neeed more references. It contained quite a few hyperlinks to suggested references and wikilinks to other relevant articles. But this is how my comments appeared on their talk page:
This has happened once before when I left detailed feedback and just the character 3 appeared inside triple wavy brackets. At that time my comments did actually appear to have arrived at their destination via message notification, despite not being visible on the user's Talk Page. I don't know if this is the case here this time. To be frank, I'm not sure I can face registering and learning how to use Phabricator to report this as an issue. Any takers or similar experiences? Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{red|This is red text}}
works fine: This is red text. However if I do {{red|This text won't show because it has a = sign in it}}
you get {{{1}}}. The fix is to specify the text as being the value for the 1st parameter by adding 1=
before the text, as with {{red|1=This is red text that has a = sign in it}}
: This is red text that has a = sign in it. The difference here is in the
Page Curation template it is the 3rd parameter and not the 1st. I thought I'd explain that, because you'll likely run into this issue when working with templates, and now you know how to get around it :) Anyway this should be an easy fix, that I will look into making, but for future reference I'm not really a good go-to for Page Curation —
MusikAnimal
talk
15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
As I've mentioned above and on the talk pages of the users in question, I've been using Rentier's unreviewed by user tool to review articles of the most prolific creators. IMHO, giving these creators autopatrolled rights would be a bad idea considering that the content they churn out often requires tagging.
If you have time, please have a second look at the pages of the following users whose contributions I have reviewed:
The only reason I'm requesting this is because the articles made by each user are often very similar so if I have overlooked one thing it may be multiplied!
Thanks for your time,
DrStrauss talk 11:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello community, i have the proposal to change the autopatrol right. The workload for a recent changes patroller is pretty big, don´t exist a system to show the edit was verified as a good edit, what complicates the RC patrol. My proposal is to adopt this system: when a user whithout the autopatrol right makes an edit, the edit will get a red exclamation indicating that the edit was not patrolled. Any user can patrol a edit, and i propose create the Special:Log/patrol to register who patrol a edit. So, if the proposal be approved, as well as creating pages that comply with the rules an user who wants the autopatrol right must make good edits, what will probably ocurr, a user who make good pages make good edits. Jasão (msg) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Oshwah: Thank you so much for the feedback! Looking to the arguments made me think in make a proposal of creating a new user right, i think it will be more efficient. Again, thank you so much! Jasão (msg) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ RileyBugz: In my opinion will give a better patrol in RCP. The workload is very big, this system reduce the workload because some users (anglophone Wikipedia have so much users that can have this user right) will have the right, and the exclamation not apear, reducing the edits to patrol. If a edit of a user is good, the patroller in the "edit patrolling group" (admins, bureaucrats, rollbackers, autopatrollers and editors in the user right that i propose) will click in this button: [Mark as patrolled] the red exclamation ! will not appear, indicating the edit was patrolled, consequently being good. If the edit was vandalism, rollback with Twinkle, Huggle or rollback tool, if was good-faith but bad, roolback with "AGF" of Twinkle or other tool. In my opinion it would improve the RCP. In lusophone Wikipedia, that adopts this system, it works pretty good, i am rollbacker in that wiki and patrols the recent changes, the workload is very reduced. Jasão (msg) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Reviewer group. In the last few days the backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality. (Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that review drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, as evidenced by the problems associated withe drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I see, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). People have brought up how NPP works with businesses, so I think more voices from our group here would be appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I see new articles with descriptive epithets, such as "Alan Alanson musician". My usual first response (perhaps unnecessarily assuming good faith) is to assume that the author doesn't know that the epithet is unnecessary, and I try to do a move to "Alan Alanson". The move seldom succeeds. Sometimes it says that the article already exists. There may be an article on the cricketer. In that case, the article can be moved to "Alan Alanson (musician)". If the existing page is a disambiguation page, of course the disambiguation page should be updated to add the musician. So far, so good. I don't have any real questions, but any comments are welcome. However, another possibility is that the title is create-protected because it has been repeatedly deleted. (In that case, the creator is using the epithet in less-than-good faith to avoid the salt.) The question is what should I do then. If one of the deletions followed an AFD, then of course the page should be tagged for G4. What should I do if all of the previous deletions have been speedy deletion? I assume that the answers, in part, are A7 if there is no credible claim of significance (but I probably already noticed that), G11 if it is really promotional, and go ahead with AFD if none of the above. Comments? Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Patrollers may encounter short BLPs of the subject of this investigation, who is a prolific sockpuppeteer who keeps creating articles about a person whom I assume is himself, who is described either as a Moroccan musician or a Moroccan muezzin, and I assume that someone can be both, because the call to worship can be chanted. Most of the articles are accompanied by an image. Now that I know that this is one sockpuppeteer, I am tagging the articles as G5 and using Twinkle to expedite the SPIs. Thanks to the admins who are taking care of the accounts on the English Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, and French Wikipedia. (At least, the Wikipedias that are being attacked are consistent with his really being in Morocco.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Four_new_sock_farms and my talk page for background here: CU has recently confirmed a sock farm of 28 socks that fit a clear paid editing pattern: complete creation of an article largely correctly formatted followed by the near immediate creation of a talk page by accounts with less than 1000 edits. These accounts also have the nasty habit of creating BLP violations framed as promotional pieces. They also challenge the notability of possible competition and of negative BLPs. Please also note that the title the original SPI was filed under has been confirmed by two checkusers as not being involved. I'm notifying this page because I think this is a larger running farm than CU can detect because of abandoned stale accounts, and that it likely will continue beyond this batch of blocks. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the keyword search and browse tool can now be accessed through the Wikimedia Toolserver at https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ Rentier ( talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung has suggested we keep you informed of our editathons. Under the Women in Red project, there are three online editathons each month for the whole month. From 1 August 2017, we also have #1day1woman with no limitation in time. If any of you are aware of editathons specially devoted to the coverage of women and their works, please drop us a line on the Women in Red talk page and we'll try to coordinate with the organizers.-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
![]() WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion on changing the wording of the global CU policy on meta at meta:Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi
In recent past, I adequately reviewed new articles; including "difficult" ones. But since last few days, no matter what article I am trying to review, it feels difficult. Feels like I am not eligible to review it. Sort of "block" I think, or some sort of loss in confidence. Any suggestions/advice on how to move ahead? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran
(talk)
18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion as to the length of ACTRIAL with the WMF. All are invited to participate at Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial#Trial_duration. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Upgrade_WP:DRAFTIFY_to_policy_or_guideline_and_disallow_moves_to_Draft-_or_userspace_without_discussion_or_consent about limiting the use of draftification. All are welcome and invited to comment. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The NPR manual says that unreviewed pages will not be available for indexing. However Hettich (company) appears on the Google search results 'infobox', on searching for Hettich despite it not being reviewed ever. Is there a dichotomy. Jupitus Smart 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Sony Music UK article was reviewed twice. Can anyone tell me why? I know editors changing a redirect to an article can cause this but that doesn't look like the case here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, my new article creations are normally exempt from showing up on this list. However, my most recent article, Stewart Levenson, warrants being reviewed by another editor and flagged for cleanup or marked for deletion, as appropriate. Please note that I was a paid contributor to this article, and have declred this on my userpage and on the article talk page. How can I make sure this new article goes through the New Page Patrol process? KDS4444 ( talk) 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Reviewers do not have the technical ability to mark their own pages as patrolled. If they did it effectively make the NPR right the same as autopatrolled, which would cause issues since those rights are intended for two different skill sets. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For all reviewers (I'm probably preaching to the choir as far as people who follow this page), please make sure if you remove copyright violations during a review (as happened here) that you also request a {{ revdel}}. I'm still working with some folks to make an easy-to-use script to make the revdel process easier, but in the meantime please be sure to keep it in your thoughts. Cheers. Primefac ( talk) 00:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The yellow highlighting of unpatrolled articles on Special:NewPages has disappeared. Is it just me or is it affecting anybody else? Is it permanently gone? Does MediaWiki:Newpages-summary need to be updated? I don't recall any plans in meta:Tech/News about this. Cabayi ( talk) 17:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I worry that I expend effort giving helpful feedback to the creator of an article, only to find suggestions pertinent to the article itself are simply lost and overlooked on a user's own talk page. Some editors have no inclination to act on improvement suggestions. Here's an example of one set of my comments left here and responded to here. The salient comment back to me being I'm afraid that I have neither the skills, time nor inclination to expand on these articles.""
So, if our Page Curation tool had the option to "Add copy of comments to article's talk page" this would enable other editors to see those constructive suggestions and hopefully act on them themselves. Many short feedback comments are clearly of no relevance to the article, but where they are, it's a great shame for them to be unavailable, and a lot more work to have to paste them in directly. Maybe accompany the feedback with a statement like this:
Any thoughts? Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought the same, and I was going to post this in suggestions section.
On a few rare instances, I have seen the creator's account going inactive after creating an article with a good subject (not about organisation, or any type of COI).
In any case, it always felt wrong to give tips regarding an article to one particular editor.
I think, the first note should go to creators talk page like it does now. And like
Nick suggested, a copy of this note, with a little difference in automated content, should go on the the article talkpage. The tool already has an option, while marking the page reviewed, a message can be sent only to the creator. Other than that, all the messages through tool should go on talk pages of the article, and the creator. That would also be helpful to spread a word around about NPR flag. —usernamekiran
(talk)
15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
A discussion has been started at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I am placing this notice here since it has been discussed at this project talk space before. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This conversation has been split from the section above
Oh bloody hell. On a separate note, I'm going through
this unfathomably helpful feed and I was wondering if anybody is willing to provide me with a second opinion on the notability of these musical pieces. Thanks if you can!
DrStrauss
talk
20:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I rarely touch music articles because NMUSIC is incomprehensible and overly complex for anyone who isn't into music. I'd support some form of simplification of it if anyone who is knowledgeable enough were to work on it *cough* Ritchie333*cough*. This is an area where we could use more reviewers who know the topic area well enough to make a judgement on the music criteria. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought the 250 character limit had been resolved Was I wrong?
So, I've just crafted a long and very detailed reply to an editor whilst tagging an article that neeed more references. It contained quite a few hyperlinks to suggested references and wikilinks to other relevant articles. But this is how my comments appeared on their talk page:
This has happened once before when I left detailed feedback and just the character 3 appeared inside triple wavy brackets. At that time my comments did actually appear to have arrived at their destination via message notification, despite not being visible on the user's Talk Page. I don't know if this is the case here this time. To be frank, I'm not sure I can face registering and learning how to use Phabricator to report this as an issue. Any takers or similar experiences? Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{red|This is red text}}
works fine: This is red text. However if I do {{red|This text won't show because it has a = sign in it}}
you get {{{1}}}. The fix is to specify the text as being the value for the 1st parameter by adding 1=
before the text, as with {{red|1=This is red text that has a = sign in it}}
: This is red text that has a = sign in it. The difference here is in the
Page Curation template it is the 3rd parameter and not the 1st. I thought I'd explain that, because you'll likely run into this issue when working with templates, and now you know how to get around it :) Anyway this should be an easy fix, that I will look into making, but for future reference I'm not really a good go-to for Page Curation —
MusikAnimal
talk
15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
As I've mentioned above and on the talk pages of the users in question, I've been using Rentier's unreviewed by user tool to review articles of the most prolific creators. IMHO, giving these creators autopatrolled rights would be a bad idea considering that the content they churn out often requires tagging.
If you have time, please have a second look at the pages of the following users whose contributions I have reviewed:
The only reason I'm requesting this is because the articles made by each user are often very similar so if I have overlooked one thing it may be multiplied!
Thanks for your time,
DrStrauss talk 11:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello community, i have the proposal to change the autopatrol right. The workload for a recent changes patroller is pretty big, don´t exist a system to show the edit was verified as a good edit, what complicates the RC patrol. My proposal is to adopt this system: when a user whithout the autopatrol right makes an edit, the edit will get a red exclamation indicating that the edit was not patrolled. Any user can patrol a edit, and i propose create the Special:Log/patrol to register who patrol a edit. So, if the proposal be approved, as well as creating pages that comply with the rules an user who wants the autopatrol right must make good edits, what will probably ocurr, a user who make good pages make good edits. Jasão (msg) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Oshwah: Thank you so much for the feedback! Looking to the arguments made me think in make a proposal of creating a new user right, i think it will be more efficient. Again, thank you so much! Jasão (msg) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@ RileyBugz: In my opinion will give a better patrol in RCP. The workload is very big, this system reduce the workload because some users (anglophone Wikipedia have so much users that can have this user right) will have the right, and the exclamation not apear, reducing the edits to patrol. If a edit of a user is good, the patroller in the "edit patrolling group" (admins, bureaucrats, rollbackers, autopatrollers and editors in the user right that i propose) will click in this button: [Mark as patrolled] the red exclamation ! will not appear, indicating the edit was patrolled, consequently being good. If the edit was vandalism, rollback with Twinkle, Huggle or rollback tool, if was good-faith but bad, roolback with "AGF" of Twinkle or other tool. In my opinion it would improve the RCP. In lusophone Wikipedia, that adopts this system, it works pretty good, i am rollbacker in that wiki and patrols the recent changes, the workload is very reduced. Jasão (msg) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Reviewer group. In the last few days the backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality. (Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that review drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, as evidenced by the problems associated withe drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I see, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). People have brought up how NPP works with businesses, so I think more voices from our group here would be appreciated. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I see new articles with descriptive epithets, such as "Alan Alanson musician". My usual first response (perhaps unnecessarily assuming good faith) is to assume that the author doesn't know that the epithet is unnecessary, and I try to do a move to "Alan Alanson". The move seldom succeeds. Sometimes it says that the article already exists. There may be an article on the cricketer. In that case, the article can be moved to "Alan Alanson (musician)". If the existing page is a disambiguation page, of course the disambiguation page should be updated to add the musician. So far, so good. I don't have any real questions, but any comments are welcome. However, another possibility is that the title is create-protected because it has been repeatedly deleted. (In that case, the creator is using the epithet in less-than-good faith to avoid the salt.) The question is what should I do then. If one of the deletions followed an AFD, then of course the page should be tagged for G4. What should I do if all of the previous deletions have been speedy deletion? I assume that the answers, in part, are A7 if there is no credible claim of significance (but I probably already noticed that), G11 if it is really promotional, and go ahead with AFD if none of the above. Comments? Thoughts? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
New Page Patrollers may encounter short BLPs of the subject of this investigation, who is a prolific sockpuppeteer who keeps creating articles about a person whom I assume is himself, who is described either as a Moroccan musician or a Moroccan muezzin, and I assume that someone can be both, because the call to worship can be chanted. Most of the articles are accompanied by an image. Now that I know that this is one sockpuppeteer, I am tagging the articles as G5 and using Twinkle to expedite the SPIs. Thanks to the admins who are taking care of the accounts on the English Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, and French Wikipedia. (At least, the Wikipedias that are being attacked are consistent with his really being in Morocco.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Four_new_sock_farms and my talk page for background here: CU has recently confirmed a sock farm of 28 socks that fit a clear paid editing pattern: complete creation of an article largely correctly formatted followed by the near immediate creation of a talk page by accounts with less than 1000 edits. These accounts also have the nasty habit of creating BLP violations framed as promotional pieces. They also challenge the notability of possible competition and of negative BLPs. Please also note that the title the original SPI was filed under has been confirmed by two checkusers as not being involved. I'm notifying this page because I think this is a larger running farm than CU can detect because of abandoned stale accounts, and that it likely will continue beyond this batch of blocks. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the keyword search and browse tool can now be accessed through the Wikimedia Toolserver at https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ Rentier ( talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung has suggested we keep you informed of our editathons. Under the Women in Red project, there are three online editathons each month for the whole month. From 1 August 2017, we also have #1day1woman with no limitation in time. If any of you are aware of editathons specially devoted to the coverage of women and their works, please drop us a line on the Women in Red talk page and we'll try to coordinate with the organizers.-- Ipigott ( talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
![]() ![]()
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --
![]() WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 09:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion on changing the wording of the global CU policy on meta at meta:Requests for comment/Clarification to CU policy. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi
In recent past, I adequately reviewed new articles; including "difficult" ones. But since last few days, no matter what article I am trying to review, it feels difficult. Feels like I am not eligible to review it. Sort of "block" I think, or some sort of loss in confidence. Any suggestions/advice on how to move ahead? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran
(talk)
18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion as to the length of ACTRIAL with the WMF. All are invited to participate at Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_article_creation_trial#Trial_duration. TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Upgrade_WP:DRAFTIFY_to_policy_or_guideline_and_disallow_moves_to_Draft-_or_userspace_without_discussion_or_consent about limiting the use of draftification. All are welcome and invited to comment. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The NPR manual says that unreviewed pages will not be available for indexing. However Hettich (company) appears on the Google search results 'infobox', on searching for Hettich despite it not being reviewed ever. Is there a dichotomy. Jupitus Smart 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Sony Music UK article was reviewed twice. Can anyone tell me why? I know editors changing a redirect to an article can cause this but that doesn't look like the case here. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, my new article creations are normally exempt from showing up on this list. However, my most recent article, Stewart Levenson, warrants being reviewed by another editor and flagged for cleanup or marked for deletion, as appropriate. Please note that I was a paid contributor to this article, and have declred this on my userpage and on the article talk page. How can I make sure this new article goes through the New Page Patrol process? KDS4444 ( talk) 02:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Reviewers do not have the technical ability to mark their own pages as patrolled. If they did it effectively make the NPR right the same as autopatrolled, which would cause issues since those rights are intended for two different skill sets. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
For all reviewers (I'm probably preaching to the choir as far as people who follow this page), please make sure if you remove copyright violations during a review (as happened here) that you also request a {{ revdel}}. I'm still working with some folks to make an easy-to-use script to make the revdel process easier, but in the meantime please be sure to keep it in your thoughts. Cheers. Primefac ( talk) 00:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The yellow highlighting of unpatrolled articles on Special:NewPages has disappeared. Is it just me or is it affecting anybody else? Is it permanently gone? Does MediaWiki:Newpages-summary need to be updated? I don't recall any plans in meta:Tech/News about this. Cabayi ( talk) 17:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)