![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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)
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)
@ 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)
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. Rosguill talk 20:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. Pam D 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
reviewed above article but has not gone to Google?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
|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)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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
There are quite a few requests over at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements, which broadly fit in three categories:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
@ JFG: Hi. Any updates on the memory overuse issue? —usernamekiran (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving...
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.
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.
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)
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:
Here is the mockup:
What do you think? -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:38, 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)
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)
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.
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)
Please discuss here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 02:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
==English please==
{{subst:contrib-XX1}} ~~~~
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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)
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)
@ 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)
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. Rosguill talk 20:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. Pam D 06:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
reviewed above article but has not gone to Google?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
|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)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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
There are quite a few requests over at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements, which broadly fit in three categories:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
@ JFG: Hi. Any updates on the memory overuse issue? —usernamekiran (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving...
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.
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.
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)
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:
Here is the mockup:
What do you think? -- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 21:38, 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)
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)
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.
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)
Please discuss here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 02:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
==English please==
{{subst:contrib-XX1}} ~~~~