![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Page Curation places Template:Cleanup-bare URLs at the top of the article. However, the documentation of the template calls for placing it "at the top of the references section". Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
|section
). It's not a simple question to answer whether the bare urls problem concern the whole of the article where refs are defined or the reference section where they are rendered. Some maintenance message templates are placed in sections for good reasons. You should check with whoever has experience with Cleanup-bare URLs to confirm. (Another example:
Template:Uncategorized should be at the bottom - Curation does place this at the bottom). Anyway, most template documentations are far from perfect and it causes problems from those who try to follow them.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs)
01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I created a person article on a dear colleague who is a researcher in population science:
Richard Gisser.
Then CoffeeWithMarkets came along and tagged the entry with a broadside of criticisms, at least some of which are undue: the page is not an orphan, and while "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" are of course matters of subjective interpretation to some extent, I really don't know what he or she might have meant. The same goes for the "encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" - my tone certainly wasn't selling any candies as I tried to draft this article in a style and wording adequate for a personal page about a social scientist. And there are quite a few inline citations, in fact I moved several from the weblinks section.
The problem is it seems impossible to get in touch with CoffeeWithMarkets as he does not respond on his
talk page to any of the authors who approach him on similar counts.
Please look into this issue as the page certainly looks awful with these multicolor allegations which I hold are spurious. --
WernR (
talk)
11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Page Curation tool is a very good tool. Just a small suggestion, having Wikiprojectwise filter or say categorywise filter would be helpful. I understand users don't tag or categorized the articles in first attempt. I am mainly interested in Wikiproject Spaceflight, Wikiproject Astronomy & would be glad to review new articles under them. Thank You - Ninney ( talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The page, and the help page, should explain a way to turn this off.
How do you turn it off ?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I find this tool extremely useful and would like to express gratitude to whoever developed it! It saves a lot of time when patrolling new pages. Well done. rayukk | talk 11:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, When i open New Pages Feed, Page curation toolbar don't display. I have this problem from 7 November 2015. Can any one help me out.( Gowhar Nabi TALK 11:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC))
How can we tell whether a given new page has been patrolled, or if a given page was ever patrolled when it was new? Is it simply the absence of the "Mark this page as patrolled" link? Special:NewPages and the New Pages Feed will give the information, but only if you can spot the page you're interested in. It'd be nice to have "patrolled" as information in the Page Information or the Wikidata entry.
Related: if a new page is not yet patrolled, but gets additional edits within a few hours or days, does the ability to patrol it go away? David Brooks ( talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I just started doing New Page Patrols, and I made a mistake. I assumed that totally non-English pages were criteria for CSD, but I realized afterward it wasn't. I removed the tag and replaced it with the Non-english tag, but it still shows as tagged for speedy deletion. How can I undo this? Thanks! Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi ! I have two questions.
1. I want to make this kind of page in sa.wikipedia. Can you guide me how it can be possible ?
2. I mark pages as "Patrolled". That is also my Wikipedia related work. So Can I know how many pages are patrolled by me ? NehalDaveND ( talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
great tool, makes patrolling pages so much easier and much faster to do.
--
Mr.Luther34
16:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This tool is massively decreasing the workload of patrollers. Thanks to this tool, tagging speedy deletion templates only takes a few seconds and no longer requires patroller to hand-send notifications to SD-tagged users.
However, the tool is not perfect. If the curation bar could integrate categorization toolbar that would be great and saves a plethora of time for patrollers.
Also, I found the speedy deletion portion of the page curation is indeed incomplete. It does not cover redirect speedy-deletion tags, which is used frequently.
Again, I am expressing my sincere appriciation to the developer of this program. With these functions, the tool could be even better.
Ueutyi ( talk) 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried, if you use both twinkle and this, they will fight each other – this doesn't let the patrol of twinkle. 333 -blue 02:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
JavaScript is no longer supported in Internet Explorer 8. The browser note at the top should change from "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 8." to "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 9.". While Internet Explorer 9 is no longer supported on Windows 7 as of January 12, 2016, it is still supported on Windows Vista until April 11, 2017. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I review a fair amount of new, undersourced articles and many of these need to be kicked to draftspace and tagged for AfC. Is there any tool that already automates this? (moves page+talk to draftspace while suppressing redirect, updates wikiproject tags, sanitizes page of cats & tags, and marks the page as an unsubmitted AfC draft) If not, this macro would be incredibly useful. czar 17:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts? czar 08:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Clicking the "Review" button from Special:NewPagesFeed does not automatically open the curation toolbar any more. Any fixes for this? I'm using the latest version of Chrome for Windows and have Twinkle enabled. Iamoctopus ( talk) 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The Page Curation window is more user friendly. Very easy to use. Regards and thanks. -- Prof TPMS ( talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The icon for unreviewed pages has been changed. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, the articles I've marked with deletion appear as reviewed instead when I choose "no indication of significance" or more than one criteria. Is it just me? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It makes it a lot easier to edit, put various tags on, This should be made available to everyone. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It would improve the speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virophage ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Virophage ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There are as of now, something around 16,000 users pages that need reviewing. If a bot could go through it that would be great. Virophage ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if the page curation software would not allow editors to add {{ stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag: it's always going to be wrong. Latest example I've come across is Jasser Yahya. Pam D 07:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is prod even an option on pages specifically ineligible for it? TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The oldest page end of the New pages feed is polluted by RfD tagged redirects. Can that be prevented? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Unreviewing an article does not add your signature to the message left on the user's talk page. Sine-bot is turned on, but I would prefer it to be automated as part of the subst/template placement.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Articles that have been already marked for deletion are often still presented as unreviewed by the tool. Most of the times, opening an apparently unreviewed article reveals a speedy deletion tag. This is quite annoying and time-consuming. Isn't there a way to fix this? -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and we look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently, the page M+A appeared on Special:NewPagesFeed. I believe this to be a bug as 1) the page is a redirect and 2) it was created 5 years ago. Never experienced anything like this before. Omni Flames ( talk) 11:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
While un-reviewing pages, the tool compulsorily leaves a template on the talk page of the first reviewer. This may be problematic sometimes. If I remember correctly, this used to be optional earlier (maybe around March or April 2016). Could this be made optional again? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ive noticed that the new pages feed is massive compared to when i last saw it.
I, like all of us, are not an expert on everything so don't feel l should review quite a few articles. Could perhaps a search function be built into the new pages feed so that i can search for items that i might be able to review quickly, for example, articles connected to Australia, which i might be able to review quickly based on my own knowledge of Australia.
This might help get more items reviewed more quickly. Just a thought. Jamesbushell.au ( talk) 07:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It is proposed to ensure that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring new page patrolls inline with the requirements for the reviewers at Articles for creation, and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions). The discussion is taking place at: New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello; How can enable "Page Curation" on the Arabic Wikipedia ? -- Bdareen-بدارين ( talk) 13:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the page curation toolbar disappearing for anoyone else? So far in the past 24 hours it has disappeared for me on Ooredoo Oman, Kevin de Queiroz and HOP! Channel. I've tried looking for it in the left toolbar but it's not there either. I used to think was some kind of bug related to me editing the article, but I have no edits to HOP! Channel. Thanks! Happy Squirrel ( talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help mentions a leaderboard, but I couldn't find it. Does it exist? — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know if a COPYVIO bot (Coren etc) still checks new pages automatically? It's suddenly dawned on me that I don't seem to recall seeing many pages tagged for COPYVIO recently. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the page curation tool to log pages you review or tag in your userspace, like Twinkle's CSD log? I'd like to keep an eye on pages I reviewed, but don't want to clutter my watchlist. Joe Roe ( talk) 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that The Foundation is currently taking a renewed interest in Page Curation
could we ensure that the issues with redirects are on the "to-do list"? The issues have been raised here before (see
this and
this) and include:
It might help if the "to-do" list could be made public, so editors could check if their own concerns were covered and suggest an addition if not : Noyster (talk), 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If I PROD a new page, the page isn't marked as patrolled, and I have to mark it manually. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea if this is the right place for this, but as recently came up at the teahouse, the Curator should really automatically remove Template:New unreviewed article when the article is reviewed, especially since likely very nearly 100% of the time it is placed automatically by the new article tool. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people either assume it already does this, or aren't really sure that they should currently be manually removing the template from reviewed pages. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the 250 character limit when sending messages to page creators? This is easy to exceed when suggesting multiple ways an article could be improved. It seems to be an unnecessary inconvenience, as any reviewer could go around it by creating a new user talk page section from scratch. The text in green is what exceeded 250 characters in this question. Forcing brevity might lead to explanations that are more vague and ultimately more confusing for newcomers. Mz7 ( talk) 14:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently had my menu display languages set to French rather than English, which should in theory only change the appears of Wikipedia for me, yet when tagging an article for deletion using the page curation tool with this setting, it generated an edit summary in French, which should be in English regardless of my personal settings as this is the English Wikipedia. Sjrct ( talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For the first time ever, the page curation toolbar appears on the Main Page. Why did this happen? GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I've created MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js which overrides the core tag options with our own custom configuration. Now all of the tags in Twinkle should be available in Page Curation. The biggest addition is the notability templates, which weren't there at all beforehand. Let me know if anyone has any problems. Best — MusikAnimal talk 04:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Joe Sample
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sandeep nokhwal for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page|TB| if you have questions.
It was obviously written in good faith by someone, but it does not provide enough information (I can't even find where the template is parked). I would replace it with something like:
Hello User:Joe Sample
The article Sandeep nokhwal has been tagged for deletion because it does not convey sufficient importance for an encyclopedia page. Please see Wikipedia:CSDA& for full details.
If you want to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page.If you have any questions you can leave a message on my talk page or ask at the Tea House
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This has still not been done, MusikAnimal.Granular criteria are still missing from the Page Curation tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have recently been unable to open the Curation tool on any page. This started a little more than a week ago, and even clicking on links directly from the New Page Feed doesn't open the tool. I can't see any options in the Tools section to manually open the tool, either. Have their been similar issues recently? Jionunez ( talk) 12:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe Thank you for the information! Jionunez ( talk) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If you attempt to use the page curation toolbar to nominate a redirect for WP:RFD, it won't work to properly apply the templates. The first time I tried it it gave me an error message about not being able to find the right place to put the template. The second time I tried it (on a different redirect) it told me the page was already tagged with a deletion template (it wasn't). ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Theres a bug there is no way to review as there is no review button i am trying to patrol but cant as the button is not showing up Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Have the new pages feed filters recently stopped working for anyone else? I'm seeing redirects and already nominated articles in the feed and can't seem to get rid of them no matter what I tick/untick. Joe Roe ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Whilst the criterion (G3) is the same - Twinkle uses more specific wording for blatant hoaxes. Page curation uses generic vandalism wording instead - is it possible this could be updated? (I thought I'd clicked on the wrong option here [3] only to do it again and find the same thing happen). Thanks! Mike1901 ( talk) 10:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Several of the tags under the Sources tab of the page curation toolbar all put {{ One source}} instead of the more appropriate tags. For example, the checkbox for "third party sources" ought to place {{ Self-published}} but places {{ One source}} instead. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
So, I just proposed an unsourced BLP article for deletion using page curation, and the message that was automatically left on the article author's talk page had duplicate headings. Is this is known bug, or did I do something wrong? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I watchlisted a recently created page I edited, and when I later checked the watchlist, I saw that the page had been marked as a "dead end" in the Page curation log. I'm guessing this means no outgoing links. Considering the other meaning of the phrase, it might be threatening for new users to see this in their watchlist. I propose this to be changed to "no internal links" or something similar. Daß Wölf 01:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
When you use the message feature to add a message when marking a page as reviewed using the page curation toolbar it creates a double header bar (two copies) of the 'A page you started (---) has been reviewed' If this could be fixed that would be great. here is an example. Insert CleverPhrase Here (forgot to sign this, sorry folks)
Opps, seems we should have been pinging Insertcleverphrasehere instead. Sorry Bill for the pings, The information above is still the case, however :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The Page Curation tool tags articles tagged for Notability > Academic with {{notability|1=Neologisms|date=January 2017}} in stead of {{notability|Academics|date=January 2017}}. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emmanuel_Navon&diff=next&oldid=762575442 and subsequent edits. Mduvekot ( talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
notability_neologisms: {
label: 'Academic',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
numbers_neologisms: {
label: 'Numbers',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
notability_neologisms: {
label: 'Neologisms',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
notability_numbers: {
label: 'Numbers',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
'Academic'
instead of 'Neologisms'
, and numbers_neologisms:
should be notability_numbers:
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This may seem like a minor semantic argument, but I think the choice of wording in the curator can be confusing, especially for editors who have recently started reviewing. Anyone who's seen a few dozen AfD noms along the lines of "article does not establish notability" is probably fairly familiar how even sometimes experienced editors can misunderstand WP deletion policy.
A7 is not an existential criteria as it pertains to the subject of an article. It does not make a claim of fact regarding whether a subject is in fact significant, and less so, notable. A new article about a person who is in fact notable under WP:NEXIST, may nonetheless qualify for A7 if the article is sufficiently poorly written so as to make no claim of significance. In other words, an article may qualify for A7 even though its subject may easily pass an AfD.
The current wording in the recent changes to the curator seems to fairly clearly imply that the person is in fact unremarkable, when the criteria that is actually being applied is that the article does not establish otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I mark a page for CSD, the tool keeps on loading forever. I can refresh the page and the page will be tagged with the CSD, but the creator of the page is not notified on their talk page. Any ideas? Meiloorun ( talk) 🍁 04:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.
See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
When I looked at a new page, the curation toolbar used to appear automatically. Now, however, I can't seem to get it to show up. Does anyone know why this is or have a solution? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Why does the New pages feed include messages that already have tags such as "Orphan", "No categories", and "No citations"? If someone has already reviewed them enough to apply tags, shouldn't they be removed from the list? Eddie Blick ( talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yoann Salmier and
Anthony Caci were in the NPP queue, but were both created in November by
Add92, who has had autopatrolled perms since 2009. Is there a reason why these articles should be showing up? They've had no other edits so it's not a redirect->article situation. I've spot-checked a couple of other autopatrolled users and their articles aren't in the queue, so it doesn't look like it's a universal issue. ~
Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~
10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi all
Just to let you know there have been some issues with open license text from UNESCO used in articles being incorrectly flagged by Earwigbot as copyright violations. The issue is caused by the original text with the correct licensing statement coming from a .pdf rather than a web page, however there are reuses of this text on the UNESCO website and Google Books missing the correct licensing statement. This makes it look like these new articles are copyright violations meaning most of the new articles and additions to existing articles created by Susan Schneegans are being nominated for speedy deletion or removed from articles incorrectly. I started a discussion on Earwig's talk page that has some more information. I'm unsure if this is a wider issue with other open license text sources originally available as a .pdf.
Many thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I revert material that is either a straight close paraphrase of any source, I have been using the edit summary "copyright issue re-X" rather than the more loaded term "Copyright violation" specifically to note that there are issues that need to be considered as opposed to an absolute conclusion that there has been a violation. Unfortunately, when the entire article is copied, reversion doesn't make sense and it should be considered for speedy deletion, the standard template uses the term "copyright infringement".Not relevant to this discussion, although true.
I do agree that the UNESCO report has a proper license. However, the existence of a proper license does not mean the words are suitable for an encyclopedia. The report is intensely political and not close to neutrally written. While it may qualify as a reliable source for some purposes, I think using it to create articles from whole cloth is a horrible editorial decision. It is my opinion that this article should be nuked, although your point is well taken that the ground should be for something other than copyright infringement.
I note the same author is copying swaths of material and dropping them into other articles. I think these addition should be reviewed carefully for editorial reasons other than copyright.
For what it's worth, I'm not, as far as I know using the Earwig tool, unless it has been incorporated into this tool.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a software bug or a user error, but when Page Curation is used to nominate an article for AfD which has already been nominated before, it tacks on the new AfD to the end page of the old one. [5] [6]. Has anyone else seen this before? ansh 666 17:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I nominated an article for speedy deletion using page curation, and this happened. Any ideas why there were two headings? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Any idea when the 'move to draft namespace' feature will be rolled out? -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, I think TheSandDoctor's question referred to our original intention to have 'Move to draft' as one of the options, along with all the other tags and deletions, included in the Page Curation tool. The actual script behind it would:
All of course which is perfectly doable for anyone who has access to the MediaWiki programming environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular rationale for why the New Pages Feed does not treat pages with {{ rfd}} tags as nominated for deletion? Is this something we might consider changing? TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just reviewed the article
Eugene N. Lane and wrote some constructive feedback using my iPhone. On checking the article creator's
Talk page to check if a url I'd included (to Earwig's copyvio tool) had displayed correctly, I found none of my comments had appeared - just this text: {{{3}}}
I then booted up my PC and start re-writing my feedback all over again. But before I could even post it, I received a message on my talk page from the article creator, thanking me for my feedback and reporting that the link I sent wasn't working. She had clearly received my first review comments, yet nothing was visible on her talk page.
This hasn't happened before (though I am very new to WP:NPP), so might this be a bug in the Page Curation tool, or some problem I had unwittingly caused? Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When tagging an article, is there a way to send feedback to the editor who turned a redirect into an article in stead of the creator of the redirect? For example: Best Behaviour (Louisa Johnson song) was created as a redirect to Louisa Johnson, and that's fine. A new editor has created an unsourced article from that redirect. If I tag the article as reviewed, notification goes to the person who created the redirect. But that's not who needs to know that the article needs references. Before I submit this as a Suggested Improvement, is there a workaround? Thanks, Mduvekot ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Page Curation places Template:Cleanup-bare URLs at the top of the article. However, the documentation of the template calls for placing it "at the top of the references section". Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
|section
). It's not a simple question to answer whether the bare urls problem concern the whole of the article where refs are defined or the reference section where they are rendered. Some maintenance message templates are placed in sections for good reasons. You should check with whoever has experience with Cleanup-bare URLs to confirm. (Another example:
Template:Uncategorized should be at the bottom - Curation does place this at the bottom). Anyway, most template documentations are far from perfect and it causes problems from those who try to follow them.
Finnusertop (
talk |
guestbook |
contribs)
01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I created a person article on a dear colleague who is a researcher in population science:
Richard Gisser.
Then CoffeeWithMarkets came along and tagged the entry with a broadside of criticisms, at least some of which are undue: the page is not an orphan, and while "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" are of course matters of subjective interpretation to some extent, I really don't know what he or she might have meant. The same goes for the "encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" - my tone certainly wasn't selling any candies as I tried to draft this article in a style and wording adequate for a personal page about a social scientist. And there are quite a few inline citations, in fact I moved several from the weblinks section.
The problem is it seems impossible to get in touch with CoffeeWithMarkets as he does not respond on his
talk page to any of the authors who approach him on similar counts.
Please look into this issue as the page certainly looks awful with these multicolor allegations which I hold are spurious. --
WernR (
talk)
11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Page Curation tool is a very good tool. Just a small suggestion, having Wikiprojectwise filter or say categorywise filter would be helpful. I understand users don't tag or categorized the articles in first attempt. I am mainly interested in Wikiproject Spaceflight, Wikiproject Astronomy & would be glad to review new articles under them. Thank You - Ninney ( talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The page, and the help page, should explain a way to turn this off.
How do you turn it off ?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I find this tool extremely useful and would like to express gratitude to whoever developed it! It saves a lot of time when patrolling new pages. Well done. rayukk | talk 11:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, When i open New Pages Feed, Page curation toolbar don't display. I have this problem from 7 November 2015. Can any one help me out.( Gowhar Nabi TALK 11:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC))
How can we tell whether a given new page has been patrolled, or if a given page was ever patrolled when it was new? Is it simply the absence of the "Mark this page as patrolled" link? Special:NewPages and the New Pages Feed will give the information, but only if you can spot the page you're interested in. It'd be nice to have "patrolled" as information in the Page Information or the Wikidata entry.
Related: if a new page is not yet patrolled, but gets additional edits within a few hours or days, does the ability to patrol it go away? David Brooks ( talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I just started doing New Page Patrols, and I made a mistake. I assumed that totally non-English pages were criteria for CSD, but I realized afterward it wasn't. I removed the tag and replaced it with the Non-english tag, but it still shows as tagged for speedy deletion. How can I undo this? Thanks! Air ♠ Combat What'sup, dog? 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi ! I have two questions.
1. I want to make this kind of page in sa.wikipedia. Can you guide me how it can be possible ?
2. I mark pages as "Patrolled". That is also my Wikipedia related work. So Can I know how many pages are patrolled by me ? NehalDaveND ( talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
great tool, makes patrolling pages so much easier and much faster to do.
--
Mr.Luther34
16:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This tool is massively decreasing the workload of patrollers. Thanks to this tool, tagging speedy deletion templates only takes a few seconds and no longer requires patroller to hand-send notifications to SD-tagged users.
However, the tool is not perfect. If the curation bar could integrate categorization toolbar that would be great and saves a plethora of time for patrollers.
Also, I found the speedy deletion portion of the page curation is indeed incomplete. It does not cover redirect speedy-deletion tags, which is used frequently.
Again, I am expressing my sincere appriciation to the developer of this program. With these functions, the tool could be even better.
Ueutyi ( talk) 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried, if you use both twinkle and this, they will fight each other – this doesn't let the patrol of twinkle. 333 -blue 02:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
JavaScript is no longer supported in Internet Explorer 8. The browser note at the top should change from "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 8." to "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 9.". While Internet Explorer 9 is no longer supported on Windows 7 as of January 12, 2016, it is still supported on Windows Vista until April 11, 2017. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I review a fair amount of new, undersourced articles and many of these need to be kicked to draftspace and tagged for AfC. Is there any tool that already automates this? (moves page+talk to draftspace while suppressing redirect, updates wikiproject tags, sanitizes page of cats & tags, and marks the page as an unsubmitted AfC draft) If not, this macro would be incredibly useful. czar 17:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts? czar 08:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Clicking the "Review" button from Special:NewPagesFeed does not automatically open the curation toolbar any more. Any fixes for this? I'm using the latest version of Chrome for Windows and have Twinkle enabled. Iamoctopus ( talk) 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The Page Curation window is more user friendly. Very easy to use. Regards and thanks. -- Prof TPMS ( talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The icon for unreviewed pages has been changed. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, the articles I've marked with deletion appear as reviewed instead when I choose "no indication of significance" or more than one criteria. Is it just me? Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It makes it a lot easier to edit, put various tags on, This should be made available to everyone. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It would improve the speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virophage ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Virophage ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
There are as of now, something around 16,000 users pages that need reviewing. If a bot could go through it that would be great. Virophage ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It would be great if the page curation software would not allow editors to add {{ stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag: it's always going to be wrong. Latest example I've come across is Jasser Yahya. Pam D 07:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why is prod even an option on pages specifically ineligible for it? TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The oldest page end of the New pages feed is polluted by RfD tagged redirects. Can that be prevented? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Unreviewing an article does not add your signature to the message left on the user's talk page. Sine-bot is turned on, but I would prefer it to be automated as part of the subst/template placement.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Articles that have been already marked for deletion are often still presented as unreviewed by the tool. Most of the times, opening an apparently unreviewed article reveals a speedy deletion tag. This is quite annoying and time-consuming. Isn't there a way to fix this? -- Ita140188 ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and we look forward to seeing you there. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 18:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Recently, the page M+A appeared on Special:NewPagesFeed. I believe this to be a bug as 1) the page is a redirect and 2) it was created 5 years ago. Never experienced anything like this before. Omni Flames ( talk) 11:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
While un-reviewing pages, the tool compulsorily leaves a template on the talk page of the first reviewer. This may be problematic sometimes. If I remember correctly, this used to be optional earlier (maybe around March or April 2016). Could this be made optional again? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Ive noticed that the new pages feed is massive compared to when i last saw it.
I, like all of us, are not an expert on everything so don't feel l should review quite a few articles. Could perhaps a search function be built into the new pages feed so that i can search for items that i might be able to review quickly, for example, articles connected to Australia, which i might be able to review quickly based on my own knowledge of Australia.
This might help get more items reviewed more quickly. Just a thought. Jamesbushell.au ( talk) 07:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It is proposed to ensure that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring new page patrolls inline with the requirements for the reviewers at Articles for creation, and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions). The discussion is taking place at: New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello; How can enable "Page Curation" on the Arabic Wikipedia ? -- Bdareen-بدارين ( talk) 13:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the page curation toolbar disappearing for anoyone else? So far in the past 24 hours it has disappeared for me on Ooredoo Oman, Kevin de Queiroz and HOP! Channel. I've tried looking for it in the left toolbar but it's not there either. I used to think was some kind of bug related to me editing the article, but I have no edits to HOP! Channel. Thanks! Happy Squirrel ( talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help mentions a leaderboard, but I couldn't find it. Does it exist? — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 23:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know if a COPYVIO bot (Coren etc) still checks new pages automatically? It's suddenly dawned on me that I don't seem to recall seeing many pages tagged for COPYVIO recently. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to get the page curation tool to log pages you review or tag in your userspace, like Twinkle's CSD log? I'd like to keep an eye on pages I reviewed, but don't want to clutter my watchlist. Joe Roe ( talk) 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that The Foundation is currently taking a renewed interest in Page Curation
could we ensure that the issues with redirects are on the "to-do list"? The issues have been raised here before (see
this and
this) and include:
It might help if the "to-do" list could be made public, so editors could check if their own concerns were covered and suggest an addition if not : Noyster (talk), 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If I PROD a new page, the page isn't marked as patrolled, and I have to mark it manually. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea if this is the right place for this, but as recently came up at the teahouse, the Curator should really automatically remove Template:New unreviewed article when the article is reviewed, especially since likely very nearly 100% of the time it is placed automatically by the new article tool. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people either assume it already does this, or aren't really sure that they should currently be manually removing the template from reviewed pages. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason for the 250 character limit when sending messages to page creators? This is easy to exceed when suggesting multiple ways an article could be improved. It seems to be an unnecessary inconvenience, as any reviewer could go around it by creating a new user talk page section from scratch. The text in green is what exceeded 250 characters in this question. Forcing brevity might lead to explanations that are more vague and ultimately more confusing for newcomers. Mz7 ( talk) 14:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I recently had my menu display languages set to French rather than English, which should in theory only change the appears of Wikipedia for me, yet when tagging an article for deletion using the page curation tool with this setting, it generated an edit summary in French, which should be in English regardless of my personal settings as this is the English Wikipedia. Sjrct ( talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For the first time ever, the page curation toolbar appears on the Main Page. Why did this happen? GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I've created MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js which overrides the core tag options with our own custom configuration. Now all of the tags in Twinkle should be available in Page Curation. The biggest addition is the notability templates, which weren't there at all beforehand. Let me know if anyone has any problems. Best — MusikAnimal talk 04:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Joe Sample
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sandeep nokhwal for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page|TB| if you have questions.
It was obviously written in good faith by someone, but it does not provide enough information (I can't even find where the template is parked). I would replace it with something like:
Hello User:Joe Sample
The article Sandeep nokhwal has been tagged for deletion because it does not convey sufficient importance for an encyclopedia page. Please see Wikipedia:CSDA& for full details.
If you want to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page.If you have any questions you can leave a message on my talk page or ask at the Tea House
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This has still not been done, MusikAnimal.Granular criteria are still missing from the Page Curation tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have recently been unable to open the Curation tool on any page. This started a little more than a week ago, and even clicking on links directly from the New Page Feed doesn't open the tool. I can't see any options in the Tools section to manually open the tool, either. Have their been similar issues recently? Jionunez ( talk) 12:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Joe Roe Thank you for the information! Jionunez ( talk) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If you attempt to use the page curation toolbar to nominate a redirect for WP:RFD, it won't work to properly apply the templates. The first time I tried it it gave me an error message about not being able to find the right place to put the template. The second time I tried it (on a different redirect) it told me the page was already tagged with a deletion template (it wasn't). ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Theres a bug there is no way to review as there is no review button i am trying to patrol but cant as the button is not showing up Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Have the new pages feed filters recently stopped working for anyone else? I'm seeing redirects and already nominated articles in the feed and can't seem to get rid of them no matter what I tick/untick. Joe Roe ( talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Whilst the criterion (G3) is the same - Twinkle uses more specific wording for blatant hoaxes. Page curation uses generic vandalism wording instead - is it possible this could be updated? (I thought I'd clicked on the wrong option here [3] only to do it again and find the same thing happen). Thanks! Mike1901 ( talk) 10:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Several of the tags under the Sources tab of the page curation toolbar all put {{ One source}} instead of the more appropriate tags. For example, the checkbox for "third party sources" ought to place {{ Self-published}} but places {{ One source}} instead. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
So, I just proposed an unsourced BLP article for deletion using page curation, and the message that was automatically left on the article author's talk page had duplicate headings. Is this is known bug, or did I do something wrong? Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I watchlisted a recently created page I edited, and when I later checked the watchlist, I saw that the page had been marked as a "dead end" in the Page curation log. I'm guessing this means no outgoing links. Considering the other meaning of the phrase, it might be threatening for new users to see this in their watchlist. I propose this to be changed to "no internal links" or something similar. Daß Wölf 01:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
When you use the message feature to add a message when marking a page as reviewed using the page curation toolbar it creates a double header bar (two copies) of the 'A page you started (---) has been reviewed' If this could be fixed that would be great. here is an example. Insert CleverPhrase Here (forgot to sign this, sorry folks)
Opps, seems we should have been pinging Insertcleverphrasehere instead. Sorry Bill for the pings, The information above is still the case, however :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The Page Curation tool tags articles tagged for Notability > Academic with {{notability|1=Neologisms|date=January 2017}} in stead of {{notability|Academics|date=January 2017}}. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Emmanuel_Navon&diff=next&oldid=762575442 and subsequent edits. Mduvekot ( talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
notability_neologisms: {
label: 'Academic',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
numbers_neologisms: {
label: 'Numbers',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
notability_neologisms: {
label: 'Neologisms',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
notability_numbers: {
label: 'Numbers',
tag: 'notability',
desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
params: {
'1': $.extend( {}, param'1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
date: param.date
},
position: 'top',
multiple: true
},
'Academic'
instead of 'Neologisms'
, and numbers_neologisms:
should be notability_numbers:
. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This may seem like a minor semantic argument, but I think the choice of wording in the curator can be confusing, especially for editors who have recently started reviewing. Anyone who's seen a few dozen AfD noms along the lines of "article does not establish notability" is probably fairly familiar how even sometimes experienced editors can misunderstand WP deletion policy.
A7 is not an existential criteria as it pertains to the subject of an article. It does not make a claim of fact regarding whether a subject is in fact significant, and less so, notable. A new article about a person who is in fact notable under WP:NEXIST, may nonetheless qualify for A7 if the article is sufficiently poorly written so as to make no claim of significance. In other words, an article may qualify for A7 even though its subject may easily pass an AfD.
The current wording in the recent changes to the curator seems to fairly clearly imply that the person is in fact unremarkable, when the criteria that is actually being applied is that the article does not establish otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I mark a page for CSD, the tool keeps on loading forever. I can refresh the page and the page will be tagged with the CSD, but the creator of the page is not notified on their talk page. Any ideas? Meiloorun ( talk) 🍁 04:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.
See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
When I looked at a new page, the curation toolbar used to appear automatically. Now, however, I can't seem to get it to show up. Does anyone know why this is or have a solution? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Why does the New pages feed include messages that already have tags such as "Orphan", "No categories", and "No citations"? If someone has already reviewed them enough to apply tags, shouldn't they be removed from the list? Eddie Blick ( talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Yoann Salmier and
Anthony Caci were in the NPP queue, but were both created in November by
Add92, who has had autopatrolled perms since 2009. Is there a reason why these articles should be showing up? They've had no other edits so it's not a redirect->article situation. I've spot-checked a couple of other autopatrolled users and their articles aren't in the queue, so it doesn't look like it's a universal issue. ~
Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~
10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi all
Just to let you know there have been some issues with open license text from UNESCO used in articles being incorrectly flagged by Earwigbot as copyright violations. The issue is caused by the original text with the correct licensing statement coming from a .pdf rather than a web page, however there are reuses of this text on the UNESCO website and Google Books missing the correct licensing statement. This makes it look like these new articles are copyright violations meaning most of the new articles and additions to existing articles created by Susan Schneegans are being nominated for speedy deletion or removed from articles incorrectly. I started a discussion on Earwig's talk page that has some more information. I'm unsure if this is a wider issue with other open license text sources originally available as a .pdf.
Many thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I revert material that is either a straight close paraphrase of any source, I have been using the edit summary "copyright issue re-X" rather than the more loaded term "Copyright violation" specifically to note that there are issues that need to be considered as opposed to an absolute conclusion that there has been a violation. Unfortunately, when the entire article is copied, reversion doesn't make sense and it should be considered for speedy deletion, the standard template uses the term "copyright infringement".Not relevant to this discussion, although true.
I do agree that the UNESCO report has a proper license. However, the existence of a proper license does not mean the words are suitable for an encyclopedia. The report is intensely political and not close to neutrally written. While it may qualify as a reliable source for some purposes, I think using it to create articles from whole cloth is a horrible editorial decision. It is my opinion that this article should be nuked, although your point is well taken that the ground should be for something other than copyright infringement.
I note the same author is copying swaths of material and dropping them into other articles. I think these addition should be reviewed carefully for editorial reasons other than copyright.
For what it's worth, I'm not, as far as I know using the Earwig tool, unless it has been incorporated into this tool.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a software bug or a user error, but when Page Curation is used to nominate an article for AfD which has already been nominated before, it tacks on the new AfD to the end page of the old one. [5] [6]. Has anyone else seen this before? ansh 666 17:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I nominated an article for speedy deletion using page curation, and this happened. Any ideas why there were two headings? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Any idea when the 'move to draft namespace' feature will be rolled out? -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, I think TheSandDoctor's question referred to our original intention to have 'Move to draft' as one of the options, along with all the other tags and deletions, included in the Page Curation tool. The actual script behind it would:
All of course which is perfectly doable for anyone who has access to the MediaWiki programming environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there any particular rationale for why the New Pages Feed does not treat pages with {{ rfd}} tags as nominated for deletion? Is this something we might consider changing? TheDragonFire ( talk) 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just reviewed the article
Eugene N. Lane and wrote some constructive feedback using my iPhone. On checking the article creator's
Talk page to check if a url I'd included (to Earwig's copyvio tool) had displayed correctly, I found none of my comments had appeared - just this text: {{{3}}}
I then booted up my PC and start re-writing my feedback all over again. But before I could even post it, I received a message on my talk page from the article creator, thanking me for my feedback and reporting that the link I sent wasn't working. She had clearly received my first review comments, yet nothing was visible on her talk page.
This hasn't happened before (though I am very new to WP:NPP), so might this be a bug in the Page Curation tool, or some problem I had unwittingly caused? Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When tagging an article, is there a way to send feedback to the editor who turned a redirect into an article in stead of the creator of the redirect? For example: Best Behaviour (Louisa Johnson song) was created as a redirect to Louisa Johnson, and that's fine. A new editor has created an unsourced article from that redirect. If I tag the article as reviewed, notification goes to the person who created the redirect. But that's not who needs to know that the article needs references. Before I submit this as a Suggested Improvement, is there a workaround? Thanks, Mduvekot ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)