Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Tool not loading

I have frequent problems with the Curation Toolbar not loading. Anyone have any tips? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a "curate this page" link in the sidebar? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's really weird. Browser/OS? And does it not load immediately, but load after a while, or completely fail? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Up-to-date Google Chrome on an XP netbook. And no, if it fails, it fails fully, it doesn't load after some time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's strange. Next time it happens, can you look in the developer console for any errors that crop up and throw them my way? It might provide a clue - this shouldn't be happening :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem (Firefox + XP).Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

and also with IE whatever the latest one is + Windows 7 - so there clearly is some sort of problem with the thing.Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not loading for me at Derrick Williams (footballer), but it is on other articles, I wonder if that's because the article in question has been configured with pending changes level 1 protection. (Mac/Chrome 24.0.1312.52) --j⚛e deckertalk 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh; interesting :/. And in all cases there's no "curate this page" button? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
in all my cases, and I've since also tried from different computers. I think it just doesn't like me.Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this is...weird. Again, can I ask for any warnings in the developer console? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
No warnings in the developer console. I've now tried a selection of different PCs with various set-ups and the toolbar doesn't appear in any of them. AFAIK I'm qualified to undertake page curation, so it starts to look as if there is some sort of problem icw my account - and presumably if so, then it will also happen o other editors. Jsmith1000 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No - lots of random ones. Perhaps there's something really basic that I'm missing (and I'm a careless reader, so that's not unlikely). I'll go back through everything to make sure when I have the time. In the meantime there's other stuff I'm more interested in doing. Thanks, but please don't spend any more time on it.Jsmith1000 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem on both Chrome and Firefox in Windows 7. If I start from the New Pages Feed page and click on an article to review, it pops up, but nowhere else.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Curation toolbar appearing when not wanted

Before thinking of coming here, I started a thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Floating_bar_for_Page_Curation.2FNew_Pages_Feed about the page curation toolbar. Basically, the toolbar started appearing for me even though I didn't want it, and it appears again even if I close it. I thinking now that here would probably have been a better place for what I posted, but since I already started the discussion there, I figured I would inform people here of it. Calathan (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the right place, yep; one of our devs is on it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

60 Days

I was looking at the oldest pages on the New Page Feed, and I noticed that although most of the pages were from January 2013, there are several older ones. The very last one is from 2005. Is this a bug, or is there a reason for it? Sorry, this is my first time looking at this feed. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the weird side-effect of including pages moved to the mainspace (which is, imo, better than not listing those). They should be few and far between, though. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think the tool is very easy to use - just one thing drives me nuts - if I add a tag sometimes it marks the page as reviewed, when I don't want to mark it as reviewed. Is this set to happen for certain pages? Secondly a suggestion - it would be useful when adding the Stub tag to be able to specify the tag you want rather than the generic tag. Just my 2c Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It should always mark it as reviewed if you add a tag; can you give me an example of somewhere where you've reviewed it, but not wanted to mark it as reviewed, so to speak? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Merge Suggestion function

Hi Folks, Fantastic tool that you have developed! Love it, can't say enough good things about it! I do have one request that I'd like to make. I checked the archives and this has been requested once before and that is to add an "article merge" request function. So far I've been using the deletion request tool and then add to the notes that I'm requesting that it be merged into another article. The folks that monitor Request for Deletion boards don't particularly like that approach since the PC tool is somewhat automated, but if we had a way to request a merge without automatically generating a deletion request I think it would streamline editing quite a bit. Just a suggestion... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :). I'll see what we can do; we're theoretically taking a second pass next year, but with how the timetable is going... :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary for CSD notification error

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T46752

I've used the sidebar three times now to nominate an article for speedy deletion. The edit summary it leaves for the author notification is not working, and always reads as "pagetriage-del-talk-page-notify-summary: Parse error at position 44 in input: Notifying author of deletion nomination for $1". e.g. here. Storkk (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Crud! I'll let the devs know; thanks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Curation flyouts and Template:Composition bar

On pages with {{Composition bar}}, the numbers in the bar will float above the Page Curation flyout. This can be seen when infoboxes use the bars, as they end up roughly in the same place. I guess it might have something to do with the bars' z-index CSS properties. Not sure if that makes it a Page Curation issue or Composition bar issue. — daranz [ t ] 06:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect a composition bar issue - we start encountering issues if we have to adapt our CSS to any/all potential templates any/all potential projects might write :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The composition bar uses a z-index of 10. It might be a large-enough value that someone arbitrarily picked, but it's higher than the z-indexes of the PC toolbar and flyouts (seems to be 2 and 3, respectively). It seems that another oft-used template that uses z-index on this wiki is {{Location map}}, which sets the z-index of a div to 100, but I haven't been able to check how that actually looks with a PC flyout on the page.
Anyway, I don't know if there's any particular reason to pick 2 and 3 as the values on the PC interface elements. At any rate, I'm inclined to conclude that this is a sufficiently edge case that it wouldn't really bother anyone that much, but it may be worth noting somewhere (where?) that use of elements with z-index set to values of more than 2 will mean going over the Page Curation interface elements. — daranz [ t ] 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Tag cleanup is missing required parameter

"Tag cleanup is missing required parameter." I don't know where to put the parameter. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I get the admonition after I have filled in the box and attempt to save everything. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oooh, weird. On one specific page, or generally? (and can you send me a screenshot? okeyes@wikimedia.org) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Four Tildes

When you are tagging an article, and it gives a message to the user, it does not add a signature so you have to go to the talkpage and add the ~~~~, giving the user two messages. I think this should be fixed. --Yrtneg T 02:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel like a bugzilla was filed for this a while back, I can't find it though. Ryan Vesey 19:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's being fixed, yep :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Scrolling through pages doesn't respect filters

When I open a page, and then scroll to the next one (using the arrow button) it doesn't respect the filter settings. If I exclude reviewed pages I'll still get reviewed pages after scrolling with the right-side panel. I don't think it used to do this, or if so I'd somehow avoided it. Is this new? Anyone else notice this? Any workarounds?

More generally, while I understand that this system is nicer for those who are new to patrolling, this new system is hardly a model of efficiency given my old workflow. Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What's your old workflow? On the bug - I certainly haven't noticed it before :/. What do you mean by "right-side panel", and what OS/browser are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Same here. The filter settings go away after an article is edited. I want to work on the oldest articles first, those that have not yet been reviewed. Mac OSX Chrome. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's working now, I think. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Very strange! Ah well, seems to have worked out in the end :). Shadowjams, are things working for you? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disable page curation

There is a problem with the curation toolbar. It continues to appear on the articles where it was opened even after it was closed. That doesn't look normal to me. ZachG (Talk) 15:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And do you have saving cookies enabled for Wikimedia sites? See Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Archive 5#Closing the Curate Toolbox... --18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)
Yeah, I already set the level to "accept all cookies" (use Internet Explorer) but it didn't work, maybe there's something else not set correctly in my browser. Anyway it's not a real problem for me since it affects only a few articles that I don't visit frequently (first thought it affected all articles). Thanks for the response. ZachG (Talk) 13:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
It may be so you have some exceptions set there which are doing that some but not all articles affected and so you have information don't show Curation toolbar again correctly stored only for pages you saw earlier and not for the new ones. Though I at first thought this type of information is stored for all pages simultaneously, to one location, but apparently that is not the case.
Hm, one idea the other way: are you still on the same computer? AFAIK, problem can be in you switching places (without cookies transported) or to have someone else on the same connection line who is reopening CurTool again. Just a bit of conspiracy... :D
Good to hear no big problem more, happy to help. See you --06:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)
Curiously everything works fine now, and I'm still using the same computer. I'm only using a different wifi connection, so that may be the cause. I will see how it works when I'm back at the university. ZachG (Talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tags not appearing

I was looking at pages from the New Pages Feed, and I wanted to tag one of them because it appeared to be written by someone from the company named on the page, and the citations were badly formatted. I use the toolbar and clicked on a couple of tags, added a comment, and clicked the "Mark as reviewed" button, but the tags did not appear on the page. I had to go and add them manually by cutting and pasting from the Template pages. I'm not sure what caused this; it worked other times. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh; that's weird :/. Can you let me know if it reappears? If not, it may be a one-time blip :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Db-notice-multiple-NPF revisited

Hi everyone. I just noticed that the fix for Template:Db-notice-multiple-NPF that we worked out in this thread still hasn't been implemented on the javascript end yet. Any chance of the developers getting this working? Or maybe we could just implement Writ Keeper's suggested code? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn :/. I'll poke people; my apologies! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Floating toolbar disappeared

A couple of days ago, the Page Curation floating toolbar stopped appearing. At first I thought it was fluke or that the software was undergoing maintenance, but it hasn't returned. I am experiencing this with both Firefox and Chrome. - MrX 23:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Is there a 'curate this page' button in the sidebar? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, no. After I click the blue "review" button, the article appears without any other (curation) links, buttons or bars. - MrX 00:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. It was a user error. When you wrote sidebar, my peabrain sent me looking for a side bar on the right of the screen where the toolbar should be, when actually I should have been looking at the sidebar on the left. Now that I've clicked on the link it's working again. I must have inadvertently closed it before. Thanks, and sorry for the false alarm. - MrX 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem; sorry for the unclear instructions :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading information

1) Pages without <ref>..</ref> tags are marked as having no citations. If you use the {{sfnp...}} templates your page appears as if there were no citations.

2) When investigating this I noticed that the toolbar does not appear, eventually from the archives I gathered that this is correct for your own pages. Perhaps next time that WP:Page_Curation/Help is revised this could be made clear please. Thankyou. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure; anyone can edit the help pages :). And yeah, I'll ask about the templating. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've had a go at updating the help and main pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not mark pages as reviewed when opting for delete

One of the problems I see with curation is that it marks pages as reviewed when the editor uses it to nominate them for deletion. When a page is up for deletion, we need more eyes on it, no less. But many of us filter so that we omit already reviewed pages. For example, I just found a page that was PRODed, then the PROD contested, and I subsequently tagged it for speedy as a hoax (because that's what it is). I ran into it just because I messed up my filter view and included reviewed pages, which I normally don't do. Pages that are up for deletion (CSD, PROD or AFD) need to stay unreviewed. If for whatever reason the original editor doesn't come back to look at the page, it's possible that it will end up being ignored. We need less hoaxes and low-quality content, not more. Curation is the first line of defense, and I think this would be a worthwhile change to the functionality of the toolbar. At least include an option to go ahead with the delete proposal, but keep the page unreviewed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't want to dump this on someone else's lap or anything, is there a Bugzilla or other enhance/bug tracking system where this can be proposed? I'd even be willing to look at the source if available, and contribute a patch to see if it is accepted. I speak PHP and Javascript among others. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with marking pages for deletes as reviewed exactly for the reason that the pages for deletion go to places (AfD, PROD or CSD) where more people will look at them anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with FRF, at least mostly. I just saw an article that an reviewer had PRODed, resulting in it being flagged as reviewed. Shortly thereafter, the page creator came along and removed the PROD tag, leaving an unsourced, untagged article marked as reviewed.
I have made a habit of spot checking reviewed articles, and have unreviewed a few that were haphazardly marked as reviewed. I think, if we are to trust the reviewed status, there should be a mechanism that prevents an article from being in a reviewed status while there is a deletion tag of any kind on the article, or at the very least, if there is a PROD tag. - MrX 03:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, AfD seems to be unprobemstic, whereas PROd or CSD need some bot support or smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
My problem is not so much with AFD, since there's a separate record of the fact that the article is up for deletion. That's not the case for CSD, PROD and BLP PROD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There already exist bots for fixing malicious removal of CSD templates, and the tagger can watchlist the page if they're concerned that might happen. Other than that, CSD-templated articles do get reviewed by an admin at some point, so they enter that queue instead of disappearing into a black hole. PROD is a bigger issue, as contested PRODs may go unnoticed if the original PRODer isn't paying attention and doesn't get a courtesy notification, but other than that they do have their own category where interested parties may review them.  — daranz [ t ] 04:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge the tool should be automatically watchlisting anything nominated for deletion. Is it not doing this? I see where FRF is coming from, but we have to balance 'getting eyes on an article' with causing massive duplication of effort. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the article is watchlisted. TW also does this. But that doesn't help if I go on vacation the next day. I am not concerned about AFDs so much as PRODs, and especially BLP PRODs, because they get overused often. A single reference might save a BLP PROD, but if more people don't "have eyes" on them, they'll slip through the cracks. And not many admins take the time to Google and source those before deleting them. To be clear, I'm talking about both ensuring that crap gets deleted and valuable stuff doesn't. Like I said, I believe that if we have more page patrollers looking at articles that are up for deletion, we could do a better job both ways. Maybe the change is not feasible, or it's not trivial, or there aren't resources that could implement it. That's fine, we adapt. But I thought I'd bring it up. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP Prods (and other Prods) are publicly listed in categories that are applied when the article is tagged, which is a pretty good vector for identifying them for improvement. Personally I feel the costs of this setup - in duplication of effort, in nixing the system's statistics - outweigh the benefit. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that one of the big wins of this new system was that unpatrolled articles were marked {{NOINDEX}} and therefore if we deleted an article without it being patrolled it wouldn't get picked up by Google. We've had problems in the past with all sorts of crap persisting in search engines for days after it has been deleted. The system lets you filter articles tagged for deletion into or out of your feed so there should be no need to mark them as patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 16:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We disabled NOINDEX several months ago after it started causing persistent problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That's very sad, it was one of the big gains from this development. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Curation of user pages

I have a user page that the page curation tool tells me is an orphan and has no refs. The page in question will never have refs and will always be an orphan. Shouldn't page curation just be for article namespace? We don't really care what happens in user namespace (within reason). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

NewPagesFeed is set to article space by default, but has the option of going through User: space as well. Most patrollers don't concern themselves with user space, but some do in order to find spam or other things inappropriate for user space. I wouldn't be so quick to call for disabling of Curation there.  — daranz [ t ] 20:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It's not a biggie. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Curator full time

I was wondering if I could get a vector.js loader script to have the Page Curator up all the time OR have a loader script put a full time link in my Toolbar to 'Curate this page'. It's rather useful tbh and not just for new page feed. I went to a few IRC chats to ask but was ignored :( I use a few *.js items and would really love having this as a full time app/gadget.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird inclusion in feed list

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48402

If I sort by oldest articles, I see Adam and Eve there, which has existed since 2001. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It was moved on the main space on March, 5 after some import. The articles moved to the main space in the last month show up in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. That would explain that. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
See this archived discussion for more details. Graham87 09:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah; I really wish we could fix this :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More options to add

Can someone add:

  • the option to specify which notability guidelines a page fails when adding Notability tag
  • Deletion sorting when AfDing
  • the {{Unreliable sources}} template

--Atlantima (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adam and Eve

{{admin-help}} Can we please get Adam and Eve off of that list, somehow? I have self-diagnosed OCD, and it's driving me nuts, though the irony isn't lost on me. I'm a reviewer, too; I thought the page protection might be the issue, but it isn't. Any ideas on what's going wrong, here? To see what I'm talking about, just open up the list and tell it to sort by the Oldest. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that I am aware of the previous posts about this topic (mentioned above and in archive 2), but can't an administrator fix this? --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, you got me instead, a non-admin who hasn't the first clue how to help you. So I converted your Helpme to the {{Admin-help}} template to draw the attention of an admin for you. Wish I could do more. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 08:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
If Okeyes, who is an administrator and is also a WMF person in touch with the developers, says "I really wish we could fix this", I'm afraid there's nothing to be done. As that post said these things stay on for a month, presumably it will drop off on April 5. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
So, at the moment we have a developer fixing the bug - well, the bug that causes it to be non-reviewed - but patching it is taking some time (it's a conflict between Pending Changes and Page Curation). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note Okeyes but it still show's up as of March 31. Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Third time's a charm?

Any chance of getting this fixed? I still keep seeing messages like this one, and I am reliably informed that this is displeasing the Gods of Wiki. I was hoping to avoid actually having to go to the new Ashburn server site, but I have my trusty 300 baud modem at the ready and I'm willing to go and patch it in myself if that's what it takes. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Okay, that wins 'making Oliver laugh out loud', at least :). At the moment things are a bit backlogged - the pending changes bug (see above) is the current priority, but I'll drop the relevant dev an email Yet Again to remind him ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not working any more?

Shouldn't there be a javascript popup box giving you options of what to do when you click on "review"? It worked earlier, and I liked it, but now it doesn't work? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


I managed to fix it by turning it on. Still not obvious though, hmm... :/ Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling delay

Hi, I tried this tool today for the first time, and I actually like it. One option that I miss from Special:NewPages is to pick articles from somewhere in the middle of the queue (5 days old, 10 days old). My Inet access is slow, and I run into other editors patrolling the same page, both at the end and the start of the queue. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know :). Yeah, I miss that feature too; I'm not sure if there's a solution, I'm afraid, short of scrolling down a lot, which is non-optimal if you've got a slow connection. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How does one handle obvious incompetent curation?

The log shows, I am sure, the "Mark as unreviewed" trends for at least one editor who appears to mark things as reviewed that are, at best, imperfect, and at worst CSD fodder. That editor's talk page is becoming congested with messages about their reviews being undone. Is there a formal system for reviewing performance of curators? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know who you are referring to. It's creating extra work for other reviewers. I find myself going out my way to monitor their reviews and have been unable to engage them in discussion on their talk page. It may make sense to remove their reviewer bit, until they can demonstrate they understand how to correctly review new articles. - MrX 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel, even if we are not considering the same editor, a scheme for revoking the rights is important. I hesitate to name and shame in public forum unless and until there is some sort of system for checking up. I accept we ALL make errors. I reserve the right to do so myself! But errors and incompetence are poles apart. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If they've repeatedly shown incompetence and refuse to fix it (or, try to, but can't) then it's a matter for AN/I, unless you want to just ask them to stop doing it. There's no software feature that covers this, much like there's no special prerequisite to being able to edit, for example - in both cases the solution is 'get them to stop or mend their ways, or block them'. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I have opened an AN/I discussion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely the solution rather than having one person mark it as reviewed is to require pages to be accepted by more than one reviewer, perhaps 2 or 3. That way the chances of all 3 people making mistakes is slim. And you don't have to be nasty to people who are trying their best but failing miserably. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but we have a slight problem with editor numbers right now that makes it rather unlikely we'll be able to have 2 or 3 reviewers per page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvements

As I have been working with the New pages tool I have noticed that there is significant room for improvement. Here are some suggestions.

  1. It should recognize all namespaces. Especially categories and templates.
  2. If an account is blocked the tool should see that. Maybe a bot could be setup to update the log.
  3. Pending changes seems to reflect in some of them. Not sure that this is a desirable outcome.
  4. It allows it to be sorted by creation date but not alphabetical. I think it would be very beneficial to have an alpha sort.
  5. Can we make a summary view without all the extra stuff between.
  6. If we mark the page for deletion it should also mark the page as reviewed.

Other than that not too bad. Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not actively developing the software, but thank you for the suggestions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask why not? Surely now is exactly the time to develop it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Because we finished building the extension in September 2012? We've switched over to building Echo for the time being. Page Curation will have bugfixes, but we don't have the resources to keep building out more features until the end of time unless we want to never really work on anything else. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
(stalking) Hi Okeyes - is the code for this feature in a repo somewhere where we (developers in the community) can see it? Would the dev team accept patches? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes and yes :). Are you familiar with our Git and Gerrit instances? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe I do know where they are. If not, I'll find them. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

These are great tools. Are they looking for maintainers? For localization? +1 to the idea of a summary view (for all curation tools). – SJ + 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Page Curation, or the suggestions above? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications are not being signed or time stamped

This may be the same issue raised here: Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Archive 6#Four Tildes. I don't know if it hasn't been addressed yet, or if it has failed again, but user page notifications are not being signed, and more importantly, they are not being time stamped.

Not only does this present an archiving issue, but it also makes it a little difficult to follow the sequence of events on user's talk page where several of these notifications have been posted. - MrX 20:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a bug we keep meaning to jump that hasn't been handled yet; I'm terribly sorry :(. I'll poke the devs now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries. It's not a big problem at all. I just wanted to make sure it was on the radar. - MrX 22:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a patch in Gerrit now, just waiting to be merged :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the fix in the pipeline. It's still not working, so I assume it takes several days before it's moved into production. - MrX 00:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep; we're waiting on someone to hit the 'this code is fine' button, which has..not been done :/. I'm going to keep pestering the few people who can do that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Grammar in spam template

I'm not sure if it's a Page Curation problem, but it's not in the other templates a user I contacted about it uses. I refer to the wording in the initial author notification - it says "an promotion". It's not in the spam-warn template, nor is it in Twinkle's notification (just tested that by warning myself). That leaves Page Curation as the possible source. As I don't know how to access the PC templates to check this, could someone please check, and if it is here, correct this? (And see if there are any other similar bloops, if it is a fault here...) Thanks. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's at Template:Spam-warn-NPF. It originally said "an advertisement" and the definite article didn't get updated when the link was repointed. I've made a change, and you should feel free to change it again if you have a better idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine now. Thanks. I had a feeling that either an adjective had gone or a word had been changed. (Happens to me sometimes, when I revise a post in a discussion...) Peridon (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

# of articles

This doesn't affect operation, but is a bug: the "number of articles" in the queue displays as the same # for me regardless of what filters I have on. EG if I say only new editor-created pages vs all pages, the filter works (in that I only see new editor contribs) but the number of pages to be reviewed (11K+) remains the same. thx. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. It worked for me...although the only filters I use are to filter out already-reviewed articles. When I did that it went from a lot (40-something-k) to 11k, but I haven't tried any other filters. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm just keeping an eye on a page I created last February, so have got the "were created by" filter set to me. According to the message at the top there are "31433 pages in your filtered list". Only one is showing which is correct. If you are referring to the lower pair of numbers, then I think the 11k is the "total unreviewed pages" and so will not be affected by filters. Note that the claimed filtered count (34k) is larger than the unreviewed count so something is seriously off somewhere. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I meant the count of only unreviewed articles. Within that subset, filtering doesn't seem to affect the count. In other words, I get the total unreviewed article count (11K) at the top of the page ("11501 pages in your filtered list") regardless of whether I'm looking at articles created by newbies, articles created by bots, etc. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep; more precise filtering is something we always intended to build in but didn't have time for, I'm afraid :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2 hours

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T49645

I am only able to view the pages created in last 2 hours. If I attempt to scroll down, the feed keeps on getting repeated. --Vigyani (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a screenshot, your OS and browser? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, its Mac OS X with Safari. Screen shots are here and here, you can see that articles like Balancing Vibrations, NBBA basketball etc (which are on top in one image) starts again in 2nd one. I am getting this problem since last 2-3 days.--Vigyani (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Your time zone wouldn't happen to be +2 (or east of UTC in general), would it? I've had a similar problem for the past couple of days, except for me the feed is skipping over several hours. I know it's tied to my time zone because I changed it a few times, and the feed would skip a different number of hours corresponding to how many hours behind UTC I was. (I'm on Chrome and Windows 7, FWIW). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
As a test, I set my time to +2, and the feed started repeating for me, so I definitely think it's a time zone issue. Setting your local time to UTC should be a temporary fix. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Mine is UTC+9 (Japan), but feed repetition time is about 2hours. --Vigyani (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Using Firefox, had the same problem. Set to UTC although I'm in the UK and we are on BST, now it works. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a similar problem on Windows with Chrome, it only loads one block of pages, and continually loads the same one when I get to the bottom. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I too have this version of the problem, Windows XP and Chrome. When scroll down the list used to auto expand with older and older items. It now reloads the page from the beginning inserting it after the end of the displayed page. Prestonmag (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)}
Thanks for letting us know! I'll poke the devs again :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tool is leaving duplicate signatures in talkspace.

When I use the tool to tag articles for deletion, it leaves two signatures below the message on the page creator's talk. Happens with Speedy deletes, prods, and AFDs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cheyer2&oldid=552606151, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaelpullman&oldid=552476172, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cheyer2&oldid=552625707 for examples.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just weird :/. Let me fiddle with the templates. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Should now be fixed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

'Sort by' options not displayed properly on iPad

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50161

The 'Sort by, Newest, Oldest' options are cut in half on an iPad 2.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh; can you take a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thought I might be asked that! Don't know how to upload from iPad, so I've emailed you the screenshot at your wikimedia.org address.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: My iPad is still on iOS 5.1.1, not iOS 6..--A bit iffy (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahh. Try upgrading that, maybe? Screenshot received; I'll chuck it in Bugzilla in a tick :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks (not really a problem for me, as it's not a feature I'd really use, but thought it might be an issue for others).--A bit iffy (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And the patch is waiting to be merged now :). The dev in question actually submitted the patch before I submitted the bug; I have, as is only appropriate, reported him to HR for violating causation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Disputed"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50417

Editors should not be able to add the "Disputed" tag without giving some explanation. It was one of the many tags thrown at a simple, poorly-written, stub about a village here. No indication of anything controversial. PamD 09:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Now tracking in bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to see "Editors should not be able to add more than about three tags". Tag-bombing is unhelpful and intimidating and not what the community wants people to be doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bug in automated message on page creator's talk page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50415
Resolved

Regarding marking pages as CSD — As of at most a day or two ago, the automated message Notifying author of deletion nomination that's put on the creator's talk page now puts the notifier's signature in a poem box (precedes the signature with a single space). For an example, take a look at this. This happened to both me and another user which is what led me to believe it is a bug. Is this a template that I or someone else can edit? Not a clue where to find it... Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 00:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this happened to me yesterday. I thought "how peculiar is this format??"...[1] I did as you and made a second edit to place my signature beside my message. It was only the second time I've placed a speedy deletion notice but I hadn't remembered my signature going in a box before. Fylbecatulous talk 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright well I guess that's confirmed. I personally feel the signature should go be beside the message anyway. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear; I'll see what I can do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Still not fixed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep; got pulled away on other projects, I'm afraid. Is this happening consistently or inconsistently? That is; for all messages, or....? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it happens only with the automated generic message "I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ... for deletion" (such as [2] [3] [4] [5]); If I remember correctly there are other messages Page Curation makes depending on the state of the user's talk page? At any rate this is the one people are having issues with, and yes it appears to happen every time. — MusikAnimal talk 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the additional examples; in bugzilla now, and User:Kaldari and I are talking through it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay; should now be fixed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries for toolbar-sent messages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50414

Would it be possible to set some kind of edit summary for messages posted with the curation toolbar? I use the edit summary feature on every edit I make so I can easily find something if I go back through my contributions, so something like this is not helpful. --W. D. Graham 11:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's weird; I thought we had that functionality :/. I'll see what I can do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Toolbar missing in chrome

Went to review pages just now and the toolbar that used to appear on the right hand side is no longer visible, any ideas why? I'm using Chrome. Mo ainm~Talk 01:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You closed it out on accident probably; On the menu of the left, look for "Curate this Aricle" in the Toolbox — MusikAnimal talk 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That was it, thanks. Mo ainm~Talk 10:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated here too. I did the same thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Curation tool missing

Tried this tool for the first time yesterday. Liked it so much I used it again today. Then the took keep popping up when I was just casually browsing, on long-esteblished pages. So I closed it (with the X). Now when I go back to the Unreviewed Pages list, and click on "Review", the tool does not return. I figured out how to turn it off. How do I turn it back on? Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC) PS - I don't see an area in preferences where I can turn this on/off. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. It is in the toolbox on left (like it says on the Project page. However, it should be noted that this only shows up in the toolbox when you are on a page to be curated, it does no good to look for it otherwise. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates in page info

For Montan (troubadour) the page info is giving some confused dates

  • Marked as reviewed on 14 June 2013 by Salix alba (talk | contribs)
  • This page was created on 15 June 2013 by Complainer (talk | contribs)

with the review date before the creation date. I'm working in UTC+1, and the page was created at 23:10 UTC with the review edit at 23:21 UTC. It looks like the creation time is in my time zone UTC+1, but the review time is in UTC.--Salix (talk): 23:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Add {{Underlinked}} to tool

I think {{Underlinked}} should be added to the tool in the metadata section. At the moment we only have {{Dead end}} for articles with not many wikilinks which isn't appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmcmahon0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Pages which I nominated for deletion (speedy, PROD, or AfD) are sometimes tagged as reviewed automatically, instead of as Nominated for Deletion, and I cannot seem to change that. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean they appear in the list view as 'reviewed', or that, when you nominate them, they are also reviewed? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi - this is happening to me as well. When I make a deletion nomination, the tagging works fine, but in the feed and in the page metadata it is marked as reviewed (green checkmark) instead of marked for deletion. (I'm new to Page Curation - I'm assuming the trash icon should appear since I see it on other pages that are marked for deletion. In one case my tagged article switched over to the correct icon after a couple of minutes, but I didn't think to check the metadata and see if someone had done some action to fix it.) I'm not sure yet if this is happening every time, but the most recent page where I observed this is this one. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, me also when I speedy delete tag. They are tagged for deletion, but the feed shows them with a check instead of a trash bin and automatically patrols them. Surfer43 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Update - when I nominate for AfD, the feed seems to work fine, but for CSD the result is still the same as before. (I haven't checked a PROD yet.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Repetition

Hi,

I sometimes am looking at new pages, and when I scroll down, I get the pages repeated, but it generally goes away given time. Is this meant to happen?

Thanks, Matty.007 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That happens to me as well. It's rather annoying. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It happens to me too, but up to now I haven't bothered reporting it. It needs fixing badly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's related to this, which got archived before it got fixed. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The bug wae reported by Oliver Keyes 2013-04-25 14:43:47 UTC. (That's 25 April 2013 for the rest of the world). Not even replied to. 15:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything.
Still happens. Appears to be getting worse if anything. Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Repetitive "Still happens" comments are not helpful. References are, like the bug report that you mentioned already: bugzilla:47645. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea how to find and quote bug numbers. Instead I alerted you to the fact that this still happens. Seems like a good case for reversion to the prior system since this one is broken. The message is important, not the messenger. Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the repetition per se. It makes page curation impossible except for the most recent few. I fear that ordure is slipping through the net. Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Does this feedback page serve any purpose? 6 July 22 June (2013) this has been reported here as happening. It still happens. All I got for my own report was a snarky comment. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, it does do something; the bug is in bugzilla, and I've poked and prodded people to work on it. To be fair, your report was (in and of itself) a snarky comment - or at least, came off like one, to me and evidently some others. Ironholds (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be resolved? Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Benny wrote a patch out for it. A cookie for him! Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

some pages not coming up with curation toolbar

I've been working on wp:npp and with most articles the toolbar appears without a problem but with two of them, .44 Remington Centerfire, and .223 Wylde, the toolbar does not appear. I've tried refreshing and hovering over the area where the toolbar pops up but no luck. What's causing this, and how can it be fixed? I previously asked at the regular helpdesk, here. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, I find that the toolbar is in the wrong place. However, I often find it in the bottom left if it is not at the top right. I don't know why this happens, but have you tried scrolling to the very bottom of the page, JanetteDoe? Matty.007 09:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I looked around all edges and did not find it on either page. I would note that the page curation queue continues to get cleaned up from the back end, but those two articles remain untouched. Either every single person on npp is shy of reviewing pages discussing ammunition, or others are also having difficulty seeing the toolbar. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen precisely this problem on both pages. I'm going to throw it in Bugzilla. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now thrown in! Bug 51301 - PageCuration: PC is anti-second amendment. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I fixed the problem. I simply moved those two articles to new titles without leading ".", then reviewed them, then moved them back to their original titles. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a workaround, but I wouldn't call it an actual fix to the problem. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 18:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah :/. Is anyone having any luck using the "old" view? Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No I stopped trying. This is just another example of a half created, minimally functional tool. I don't know if this was created by the WMF staffers or if it was a volunteer project by one of the developers but someone needs to devote some time to fixing this thing. As with Visual Editor this could be a great application but it needs a lot of work and no one wants to make the time to fix it. Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so it's "No, with the caveat I stopped trying". Great; thanks for the confirmation. Ironholds (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, no problem. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The date and time for each article should be the date the page entered articlespace, not the date the page was created.

Special:NewPagesFeed uses the date/time a page was created in the listing; the list is sorted by that date/time. But if an article was created in userspace, and subsequently moved to articlespace, this date/time can misleading. For example, the "oldest" article in the listing, as of this moment, is one dated 02:56, 16 July 2009. In fact, this article was moved to articlespace today; it's real date is 13 July.

Since this "oldest" article is an autopatrolled article, it is supposed to remain in the feed for 60 days. That means that the system knows (despite the article's 2009 date) that in fact it appeared in articlespace today (July 13), and so the 60 days have not yet been reached. If the system knows that, then it should display that date (the one it is using to count down the 60 days), not the page creation date, and it should sort by that date, not the page creation date. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

possible for page to be marked reviewed twice without being unreviewed in between

When curating pages, I started marking them as reviewed and then might add some tags. However, adding tags causes them to be marked reviewed again, even if they have already been reviewed. For an example, see the page curation log and search for entries against page I Don't Luv U. I don't have an account on wikimedia's bugzilla but someone who does might want to open a bug report. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Pages that won't go away

There are two pages at the back of the queue on the New pages feed that will not go away, and will not show the curation toolbar.

Other pages are working fine for me and the tool bar is showing normally everywhere else. I tried what other people suggested about the toolbar being closed, and looking for the Patrol link on the left, and it is not there. Any ideas? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

See #some pages not coming up with curation toolbar above. Chris857 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Duh. I read that but must have scanned over the names of the articles. Thanks for the heads-up. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 15:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't let editors add superfluous stub tags

It would be a great help if the Page Curation software didn't allow editors to add {{stub}} to an article which already has one or more subject-specific stub tags (identified as templates ending in "-stub". Here's an example: two good stub tags, but an editor uses Page Curation to add {{stub}}, wasting other editors' time (but boosting their own edit count, I suppose). PamD 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has made this mistake several times, I agree. For some reason stub templates are easier to accidently overlook than other templates on a page - it's got nothing to do with boosting edit counts (at least, not for me) --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 15:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

'Old' no longer working

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T54683

Is anyone else having issues loading the feed oldest-pages-first? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, broken for me too. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 15:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Shows an empty page for me as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh thank god. For a moment I thought I was going mad. Throwing in bugzilla. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
@Wtwilson3, Ymblanter, and Tikuko: browser/OS info?
Chrome 28.0.1500.95 m / Win7 --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 06:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Chrome Version 28.0.1500.95 m / Win7 too. And still broke this morning. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be somewhat working again for me; I have it set to 'new editors' and on a whim tabbed over to 'oldest first' and, behold, it loaded. If I untick 'new editors' it goes back to being broken, showing only a single entry. Previously it wouldn't load at all. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 03:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Not working properly yet. It says "12183 pages in your filtered list" but only shows one. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Still not working. Is there any fix on the horizon? Anybody? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Bueller? Bueller? JanetteDoe (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to click on the Bugzilla report and find out what's going on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. Developers still appear to be slugging it out over the validity of the bug. Fortunately selecting one of the options on the bottom half of the filters pop up will make at least some articles appear. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Heh; the guy arguing with Andre is me ;p. As much as I'd love to be a developer, it's not really my domain. Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ironholds - But you ARE listed as the Community Liaison for this project. So can you get us a status update through your official capacity @Okeyes (WMF) —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Still Broken — Seriously, is anyone actually working on this? There is no movement on the Bugzilla page since the 19th, an apparently no communication from any developer. I liked the feed, but now I have nothing. I saw the suggestion for "selecting one of the options on the bottom half of the filters pop up" - but why should I have to select some type of problem? So it is now impossible to patrol pages for which this system finds no errors? It was working fine and suddenly it broke. The development team needs to look at what happened right before this thread started, because this was reported here less than a day after the problem began. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the Foundation considers the need for a coordinator for the development of the Page Curation project has been fulfilled and is no longer necessary. From various comments I have seen I understand that Oliver is now working on the coordination of other developments. The only thing that can probably be done here is to keep prodding the people at Bugzilla. If that doesn't work, as Page Curation was a top-down innovation from the WMF, perhaps a clear message to the WMF would be the solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done [6]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD for a template with "NPF" in the name

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18#Template:Nothanks-sd-NPF. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_21#Template:Db-banned-notice-NPF. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Db-banned-notice-NPF has now been deleted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC) relisted. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Er; @This, that and the other: what do you mean by "removed from Page Curation", there? Ironholds (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
@Ironholds: Well, presumably Page Curation would try to leave this template on the creator's talk pages when a user tags a page for G5 deletion. If it doesn't then that's OK, but if it does, then users are going to get a broken message unless Page Curation is fixed. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes - it does. I'm going to head on over to DRV (warning in advance). Ironholds (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
where do you view the list of templates used by Page Curation? Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a category - Category:New Pages Feed templates. Ironholds (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
and how does that category stay in sync with the code used by Page Curation? what I asking is where do I view the code? I would like to make sure all the templates in that category are used by the code, and all the templates used by the code are in the category. Frietjes (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't, necessarily; the category is user-maintained and the code, well, isn't. If you want to view the code, it's somewhere in the MediaWiki git instance (PageTriage, most likely, is the extension name). Ironholds (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's here. Why is enwiki-specific code stored in the git repository, instead of in a local MediaWiki namespace page, I wonder? That was a bad design decision by whoever wrote PageTriage. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume because there was no other option; this problem was surfaced with the developers at the time. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
definitely a poor design. at the very least, these should all be merged into one template with a switch or subpages. checking the code there are several in the category that aren't used by the code. by having the two separate, the synchronisation is going to be a problem, among other problems. there should be a clean API that can be used to export this to different language WPs that do not use the same template warning/notice structure. what a mess. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, that's something the developers are going to work on. If you're volunteering to come up with an easy way of having a community workflow-oriented piece of software generalisable to many different communities and different wikis - where template name is by far the tiniest of the problems - I encourage you to write it yourself and submit a pull request. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The toolbar never shows up

The Page Curation toolbar never shows up when I'm browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and click "Review". For example, every time I go to Gender and Mine Action Programme (GMAP), the toolbar doesn't show up. (Using Firefox 23.0.1 on Windows 7) APerson (talk!) 12:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's really strange; on any article? Is there a "curate this page" link in the toolbar? Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't close the toolbar

I clicked "Curation toolbar" from the toolbox menu, just to see what it did. I brought up the curation toolbar, I played with it a bit, decided I don't like it - but I can't get rid of it. WP:CURATE says I can close it by clicking the close/cross icon, but there is no such icon on the top of my toolbar. Is there some other way to get rid of it?

I'm using Firefox 14.0.1 on Windows 7 with Monobook skin in my Wikipedia preferences, but I get exactly the same problem with Internet Explorer 11 ("desktop", not metro) on Windows 8.1 (this is on a virtual machine, with minimal customisation of IE), and/or if I switch to Vector skin.

I tried rolling back my Firefox profile to an earlier version, but that doesn't remove the toolbar - presumably it's stored in my Wikipedia profile online, but I can't see anything obvious under Preferences.

I really don't want the toolbar appearing - how can I get rid of it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a screenshot of the toolbar? I can see why it wouldn't work on Firefox 14 - we don't tend to support browsers that outdated - but no reason why it wouldn't work on IE11. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes, I find the toolbar in the bottom left of the page, after scrolling to the very bottom of the page. Thanks, Matty.007 15:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the same thing - a known (and different) issue. Hella-frustrating :/. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to put my post in the above question. Matty.007 18:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also tested with a clean install of Firefox 23.0.1 on Windows 7, IE8 on Windows 7, (both on VMware 5 virtual machines) and Firefox 23.0.1 on Windows XP (not a VM). In all cases, the toolbar has no close button, and looks like the image on the right (floating over some text in the Daniel Scott (harbour-master) article). IE8 on Win7 has squarer corners and no shadow, but is otherwise identical. Is there some setting in my Wikipedia profile that I can use to turn the toolbar off? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hit the button at the top, hit the resulting X. Ironholds (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems to do the trick - but it is not exactly intuitive (nor does it match the instructions on WP:CURATE). Is this some weirdness in my configuration, or is it the same for everybody? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Same for everyone - it's just an outdated screencast. I should redo that page when I have some spare time. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that you should redo the toolbar rather than the help page. The current toolbar is not good in that:
  • The picture on the minimize button does not denote "minimize" in any obvious way. (I'm primarily a Window user, but most of our users probably are too.)
  • The button has a tooltip, so if I hover the mouse over it I know that it will minimize - but I there's nothing to tell me that I have to minimize it before I can close it.
The toolbar shown in the current documentation (File:Curation_Toolbar_Add_TagsBlank_Aug_10_2012.png) is better. It includes a close button with a common (thus recognisable to most users) "close" icon - which I expect has a "close" tooltip. (If it doesn't, it should have.) It's also apparently smaller than the current one - is the minimize button used so much that it needs to be as large as the other buttons? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll just go build that now with the coding skills I don't have ;p. I'm answering these questions as a guy who does a lot of new page patrol, and the help I can offer is limited to that jurisdiction, too. Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. WP:CURATE says to report any issues here, so I'm hoping that someone who can "fix" the toolbar is monitoring this page and will do something about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah; as said, the page needs updating :/. We are getting ongoing bugfixes (it looks like Benny posted a fix to the problem with full stops in titles. Woo!) but full design reviews, not so much. There is some discussion of doing a Sprint on Page Curation later in the year. Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wrong" template

The Curation toolbar adds {{linkrot}} when it should be adding {{cleanup-bare URLs}} instead. -(t) Josve05a (c) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear :(. I'll add a bug. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait; linkrot redirects to cleanup-bare-URLs. So, what's the actual functional bug, here? Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I know. But the redirecting, will add more date to the servers and make any AWB thats running on those pages change it. -(t) Josve05a (c) 09:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirecting doesn't do anything to the servers :/. Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

HotCat

Usually, I do categorizing work with Page Curation. Over the past few days, something very strange seems to be happening: HotCat is working for me on normal articles, but doesn't work whenever I access an article from Page Curation. I'm on IE8, if that matters. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 18:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug with hotcat rather than page curation. I would strongly advise upgrading from IE8 if you can, anyway; from a dev point of view it's an incredibly problematic browser. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphan tag

It could just be me being thick but I can't seem to remove the reference to a page being an Orphan. I checked it - it isn't an orphan but the tag is still showing on the [[7]]. There is no where on the page to remove the tag and reviewing the page didn't do it so - am I missing a step somewhere?Antiqueight discuss 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Orphan" isn't calculated via a tag, it's calculated via the pagelinks table, which takes some time to update :). Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. That's grand so.Antiqueight discuss 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Wait, can you clarify on this? Is there something implemented that auto checks if a page is an orphan? Because, I have been manually doing this. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It only checks if it's an orphan for page curation purposes, I'm afraid :(. So, for a very long time we've had a database table called pagelinks (and another called templatelinks, and another called categorylinks) that checks for incoming, internal links to a page; it's where Special:WhatLinksHere comes from. I believe it's also being used to generate checks on whether there are any internal links to a page that is listed in page curation. Why it's not used in other workflows, I don't know; there may be scaling problems. Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorting

I don't know if it's possible to make, but it would be great if you can sort the articles (different projects and/or specific words). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by words, in this case? I suspect wikiproject sorting would be an incredibly complex project, since there are so many of them (and none of them recognised by the software). Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking some other filters - looking for articles on subjects or in categories - new articles to be deleted or about airplanes or the like - would make it much more interesting to go through...--Antiqueight confer 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
@Ironholds, with words I mean that you can search articles by typing specific words (searching in title, content and/or categories of the article). So if you're an expert in tennis for instance, that you can find all the unreviewed tennis articles. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like it could be painful, technically-speaking :/. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Buggy CSD A10

When the tool leaves a note on the author's talk page there is a wikilink error:

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FooBar for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

The article template is correct, but the notice just has that {{{article}}} thing, rather than the actual wikilink.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear :/. I've made a tweak that will hopefully help - let me know if the problem reoccurs? Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks fixed, thanks--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple selections

When tagging with more than one criteria the author gets a note saying it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reason. Would it be possible to get each reason listed? If it would end up to be too bulky I will try to remember to place a follow-up note.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a software-side fix, but I'm not sure how easy it would be :/. Would you like me to submit a bugzilla ticket? (you're welcome to as well, of course). Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Any way to see how many pages I've reviewed in total?

Just curious. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, although if you particularly want to know I can grab the data fairly trivially. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Ironholds, but I was just curious for future reference. Particularly, if I wanted to apply for certain editing privileges or software use, it would be nice to say I've patrolled x amount of pages instead of just saying "a lot". Sulfurboy (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Aha. Sounds like a Labs tool in the making! Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Next page button

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T41419

This has probably been raised already, but often when I click the 'next page' button at the base it whites out and doesn't go anywhere, and I have to go back to the new page stack to find another new page to patrol. There are still plenty there so I know that it can't be that it has reached the end of the stack. Am I doing something wrong? --S.G.(GH) ping! 11:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@SGGH: oh dear; that shouldn't be happening :/. Browser/OS? Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
@Ironholds:, Google Chrome and Windows 7 Home Premium. --S.G.(GH) ping! 10:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :). If it happens again, can you let me know if the error console shows anything? Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, I use chrome and win 7 and never have had this issue. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ironholds: - Happened again. I ran the error console and it showed nothing, but I was able to inspect the icon and show that it's displaying the disabled skip.png (or similar) icon. I've attached an image. --S.G.(GH) ping! 10:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It's doing it all the time now. --S.G.(GH) ping! 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I finally came across this error today. It seems to happen when you sort the Special:NewPagesFeed by oldest and click the one at the top. Almost as if it's trying to continue to track backwards instead of forwards when you click for a new page. If someone could pass this one to the bug report it'd be appreciated as I don't want to edit that bug page without being familiar with how that works. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Curation toolbar not loading

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly a temporary thing. Working now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Next Page" button is completely obnoxious

It's like infecting your computer with a virus; gotta quit WP to lose that crap. I hunt and peck for things that (1) I have some knowledge or interest in and (2) that I know will pass GNG. I've got no desire whatsoever to go down a 5 day old list page after page after page. Ugh. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Then...don't use it ;p. Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure a suitably motivated JavaScript developer (i.e. not me) could probably hack together something to pop into your user JS file to hide the next page button. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes hides away at the bottom of the page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T51027

I've just started new page patrolling again. It's less awful than I remember.

On some articles, the page curation toolbar sits nicely on the right-hand side of the page. On others, it hides itself away at the bottom of the page. My working hypothesis is it does so where there's some content that's floating right: an image, infobox etc. It floats properly on List of Astro Boy (2003) episodes but not on Dag Rune Olsen, for instance. I'm using Firefox 25 on OS X 10.9. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis - nobody else has been able to diagnose this! It's at bugzilla:49027, where I've added your thoughts (as a web nerd, any chance you feel like helping contribute a patch? ;)). Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, I must decline. I try to avoid writing JavaScript even when people pay me to do it. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page_Curation/Archive_6&oldid=1140108401"