Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 9

Oddity
Not sure if this is a bug... or really what's going on here. See here. I went to tag the page for CSD, but someone beat me to it, so I got an error message. For shits and giggles I checked the logs to see if it had been repeatedly recreated, and lo and behold it says I reviewed the thing, which... I... technically shouldn't have performed any action... at least I think? Timothy Joseph Wood 15:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that it treated it as reviewed like it would have when you tag anything for deletion via Page Curation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It automatically marks pages as reviewed when you tag them for deletion, so presumably it did the first step but couldn't complete the second because there was already a CSD tag on it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Turn off auto-mark as patrol after tagging" and "show up by default"
Is there a way to turn off "auto-mark as patrol after tagging"? Also, the curation toolbar doesn't show up for "old" pages (not sure how the time is defined). How can I make it to show up by default at all times? - The   Magnificentist  14:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can mark any page you have patrolled as unpatrolled by clicking the green tick again. If a page is able to be curated using the curation toolbar, the "curate this page" link will show on the left hand toolbar. If it does not appear, I suggest using Twinkle if the older page needs a tag, nomination for deletion, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works but clicking unpatrol would still leave it in the history. - The   Magnificentist  15:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

New Pages Fee - request more namespace options
Hi, nice New Pages Feed. Lately I've become interested in essay/infopage/help type materials. It would be great if the New Pages Feed could be expanded to allow searching on just the WP: and Help: namespaces. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Double-logging when tagging for deletion
Page curation seems to be double-logging my actions when I'm tagging something for deletion. Any thoughts on how to stop it? Home Lander (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a deletion tag log and a page curation log. Tagging an article for deletion creates an entry on both. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, perfect then, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Draftify" option should be added
The page curation should have a "Draftify" option, which moves the page to the draft namespace, notifies the user, and adds the draft afc template to the draft. This is similar to the User:Evad37/MoveToDraft tool. If the user has the Page Mover user right, it should move without leaving a redirect, and if they don't, it should automatically tag the redirect for CSD R2. In my experience, many articles that are PRODed or CSDed would be much better off draftified, and I routinely use it for most new articles that are undersourced but look like they might have the potential to be a notable subject if someone put a decent amount of work into it (with the exception of articles which I believe will be likely to be worked on very quickly by other users, such as new albums by established artists, or else articles that clearly demonstrate automatic notability criteria with at least one source). In my experience, about a fifth of all new articles would be best served by being draftified. Draftifying encourages new users to continue working on the article, while tagging for deletion discourages them (why bother if it is going to get deleted anyway, especially in the case of CSD). In any case, Draftifying articles is currently difficult as a manual process and the automated tool available is obscure. Semi-automated Draftification should be made more available to New Page Patrollers through addition to the page curation tool. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It has already been asked for a dozen times and is on the list of suggestions. Although I'll say what I always say: I don't see what purpose it serves. If the article is on a viable subject and has the potential to be a good article, it can be tagged for cleanup and left in mainspace. If it's not, we should delete the article not waste the creators time by moving it to draft. How can something "have the potential to be a notable subject if someone put a decent amount of work into it"? Either the subject is notable or it isn't. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Joe, The answer to your question is: borderline cases. You left out the word "might" when you quoted me above. If it isn't clear whether it might or might not be able to classify as notable, articles tend to get deleted rather than kept (i.e. there are very few sources available, or nearly all sources are offline), especially if the submission is light on info. For new articles like this I am a firm believer that draftification is the best choice, it sends users in the direction of AfC where there are users that can give help and advice, and encourages the user to continue working on the article. Because of the nature of new pages, and the kind of entries that tend to get submitted, there are quite a lot of articles that fall into this category. Most of the feedback I get from new users when draftifying their submissions has been quite positive. They often have had trouble in the past with their new articles getting quickly deleted, and are grateful to have their article retained with the chance to work on it further. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Backlog?
Is there any way to see a meaningful representation of the new page patrol backlog? By that I mean how long it takes the average new article to be reviewed.

I recently created Holdsworth House and it would be helpful to see a message such as "The average time elapsed between page creation and it being patrolled for pages created in the last month is 3.6 days. If your page has been unpatrolled for more than X days you can seek help from wikilink ". Lineslarge (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Reviewers pick and choose what they want to review. They do not always work through the list in chronological order. Thus any average is actually meaningless. The backlog is currently around 16,000 and will take several months to clear - if it ever is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional filter
G'day, can we get an additional filter by changing were created by new members to were created by unconfirmed users and adding in a category for were created by unextended-confirmed users(or name to that effect)? I feel WP:30/500 is a better mark to differentiate users that will truely know what they are doing rather than WP:4/10. Cheers —   IVORK  Discuss 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , starting 14 September non-autoconfirmed users will not be able to create pages for 6 months as part of a research experiment(WP:ACTRIAL). I think your suggestion here makes a lot of sense because of that. I'm pinging who are the team we have been working with on this. I can file the phab ticket no problem, but I want to alert them of it before I do so and get their thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable idea, although our team isn't in charge of Page Curation. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * NO, of course not . And you will be making sure that nobody is, and that there is no on we can talk to.. The usual excuses will abound - no time, no people, no money. We've already seen how you've opened Phab tickets to some of the requests to make it appear as if your doing something. will see to it that they have to be listed with the Xmas wishlist for trinkets and toys again - and promptly shoved aside again. And you wonder why you are loosing experienced volunteers? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The team in charge of Page Curation (as I've mentioned several times and can be verified at mw:Developers/Maintainers) is the Collaboration team (recently renamed the Global Collaboration team). Despite this, my team (the Community Tech team) has devoted numerous hours to working on it as a volunteer project. It is not, however, within the scope of our team (unless it makes it into the top 10 of the Community Wishlist Survey). Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Added to phab., I think is in charge of the team that is over page curation (and if not, could one of you point me in the right direction). I actually think this makes sense to fast track (and yes, I know we have a ton of tickets in phab), considering that the current filter will be all but useless within a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Joe is the right person to triage this ticket. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed Pages stay in unreviewed list
ave the NPP user right assigned. I click the checkmark green and choose mark reviewed. My review shows up on the list of user actions as a review. Only thing that does not happen is the article never seems to leave the NPP feed. I'll come back and find the same pages I already reviewed. I review a lot of userspace and a lot are just normal new userpages. It's annoying. Is there something else I need to activate or do? I'm not really beating down the unreviewed list this way. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Now that I  have withdrawn from  actively coordibating NPP/NPR issues, there doesn't  appear to  be anyone watching  this page. Please file a bug  at  Phab directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Has anyone done this? I am seeing pages identified as unreviewed, but have clearly had tags added and worked on the very same day. --LibraryGurl (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you provide an example page? My suspicions are 1) It was tagged by someone without the NPR usergroup with Twinkle or AWB 2) A reviewer has changed their Twinkle settings not to mark pages as reviewed 3) it was intentionally unreviewed. I've never encountered this problem going through the new pages feed myself, so I'm curious to see an example. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went to the curation feed- I look at them in order of oldest to newest, without filters. The first on my list just now was MSoft and here is the history page.  After no edits have happened since the page was created until today about an hour ago.  Yet, it showed up on my curation list. Yes, it's a redirect page, but still... --LibraryGurl (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * see this explanation, and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni}} that was just an example, it's more than the redirect pages. It's been going on for a while, I just got annoyed enough to ask about it now. No action on an article for years, then I see it on the list, but someone had been there within a few hours, added tags, and presumably reviewed it. --[[User:Librarygurl|LibraryGurl (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

, next time you see this happen feel free to reach out to me on my talk page and I'll have a look. My assumption is that this is am issue with page blanking or converted redirects as explained in that link, but I'd need to look at a specific article to be sure. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Backlog
I expect everyone has received the December newsletter. Eleven years ago Jimbo Wales suggested Wikipedia contributors should shift their focus from the number of articles and instead work on improving their quality.

By preventing through ACTRIAL the possibility for first-time users to create articles directly in mainspace, we have successfully reduced the workload at the New Pages Feed by about 80%. But that does not mean we can retire. For some unexplained reason the backlog has not reduced one iota, unreviewed articles - mainly junk - is being released to Google after remaining unpatrolled for 90 days. And we are now faced with a new challenge: detecting an increase in artspam and other paid editing by users who do their 10 edits and patiently wait 4 days.

In a volunteer collaborative environment, participants can make their own minds up as to where they want to work and the extent of the work they do. One of the biggest challenges to effective New Page Reviewing is incentive and reward, but it’s not like Today’s Article for Improvement  or  Collaboration of the Week  or the WikiCup. Those are all informal projects. NPP is an essential, but dreary core function that simply has to be done by someone, and all the time 24/7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Finding redirects
So the newsletter encourages us to review Redirects. How? If I try to set the filter to "Redirects" it won't let me do so unless I also select another box such as "Unreviewed pages", in which case the output is predominantly ordinary non-redirect pages. What am I missing? I tried following the instruction "If you want to review particular types, categories or topics of articles, consider using the NPP Browser tool on Labs." but couldn't see anything about redirects at https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/. Advice, please? Pam D  17:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a great idea! I have the same problem, so I have to search and search for redirects. This and one other issue, that of allowing quick moving and tagging to Draftspace, would be wonderful additions to New page review. The faster and more efficiently we can work, the quicker the backlog will disappear!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a script for draftifying User:Mr._Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this script works in the User namespace, not mainspace. There is a different script for what is needed here. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The page curation tools are broken... as far as I know there is no way to search by only redirects (it gives you the option but it doesn't work and lumps them in with the other non-redirect articles). The NPP browser doesn't list redirects. I've spoken with and he has no intention to update the tools unless we go through the Wishlist. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information! I'm sure there is more to the story that DannyH isn't letting on or else it would just be repaired so we can do our job more easily. And thank you, Legacypac, for the pointer to Mr. S's script!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a gross attempt by the WMF to avoid addressing these issues. In one breath tells us to use the wishlist. When we use the wish list, he tells us that these issues are not within the wishlist's remit, then he tells other and/or newer users who ask him about it that it's a wish list mandate. It's time someone was in charge at the WMF. Perhaps in the meantime  or  has found out more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When did he tell us that it was not within the Wishlist's remit? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Finding people to fix specific issues is always a problem.
 * Is this bug already listed on phabricator? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Try lobbying who as  is responsible (apparently) among other tasks, for: . (emphasis is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)`


 * So the answer to my question is "No, there is no easy way to find redirects to review". We just need to find these needles in the haystack of the new pages feed. I'm a fan of redirects and would have been interested to do a blitz of reviewing some of them, but it looks as if it just can't be done. A pity. Pam  D  21:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More like finding the hay amongst the needles (as there are nearly 2x more redirects than articles), but most of the redirects are somewhere in the middle, so it isn't easy to scroll down to them in the New page feed (and even then you will be hitting articles quite often). I'm very disappointed that the New Page feed has this kind of bug. I'll try to see if I can file a Phabricator report (that the WMF will most likely ignore). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I know of one way to show redirects using the mw-new-redirect tag on Special:NewPages. It doesn't find very many though. Mduvekot (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Probematic redirects are likely to come in batches from a single user (remember User:Neelix?) Page Curation shows them one at a time which makes patterns hard to see. A bot created report of unreviewed redirects that refreshes daily or twice a day would be a much superior way to look for anomilies like mass creations and inappropriate Redirect vs targets. Something sortable like User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report that includes: Ping User:MusikAnimal Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect name
 * Target page
 * Creator name
 * Last edit date


 * I think I've cracked it: searching from oldest and specifying "No categories" in filter seems to find almost entirely redirects - slightly surprisingly. Have just reviewed a whole bunch. Pam  D  23:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny, I tried that the other day and got a lot of articles with no categories. Just tried it again and got mostly redirects. Still, it seems better than "with categories", so good catch Pam D !   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  03:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the Redirects option in Page Curation is meant to include redirects along with non-redirects, not only show redirects. That seems to make sense with the UI, since the other checkbox options are also inclusive, not exclusive. Instead we'd need a separate dropdown or set of radio buttons, I guess. A bot task is probably easier than adding new features to Page Curation. Toggling the Redirects checkbox and doing the math, there are some 7,000 unreviewed redirects, too many to list on a single wiki page, but I guess we could put a limit on it. I'll try to look into it soon! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not sure I'm fond of the idea of a bot task. It'd have to refresh quite often, because otherwise you're going to get people re-reviewing pages, since they won't be removed from the report in real time, and I suspect you'll get quite annoyed doing it yourself. Anyway, I would create a phab task -- and again note this isn't a bug, but a feature request. The usual anti-WMF rhetoric also isn't helpful, and makes this all very unfun, which is why I no longer volunteer my engineering skills on the Page Curation extension &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the anti-WMF stuff. I agree it's not helpful. But please consider our POV. The page curation tool has some real issues. Whenever we complain about that, we get nowhere. If we say something isn't working the way it's supposed to, we're told that it probably is working the way it's supposed to, but without any reference to documentation of dev specs. How can we discuss with the devs whether something is a bug when there's no documentation? To suggest that we submit our issues to the annual wishlist is disingenuous; does anyone seriously think that our little band of new page reviewers has enough weight to swing a vote? There are maybe 50 of us who are really active. The WMF (per Danny) is is suggesting that we start canvassing to convince people and tells us that the wishlist process is working just fine? Can you see the problem here? Mduvekot (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get too involved here, but trust me I'm aware of your concerns, I'm a volunteer too! :) I just deduced that the above issue wasn't a bug because the other checkboxes weren't "exclusive" (if that makes sense). I agree it isn't really intuitive, though. The wishlist recommendation is in regards to getting help from Community Tech, who is not responsible for this extension (more at ). It looks like there is documentation at Page Curation/Tutorial, though I don't see anything about redirects. Feel free to update it. I'm a nice person, promise, so sorry if I seem frustrated (nothing directed at you in particular), I've just over time found the NPP discussion venues to be toxic. I'm sure the responsible devs feel similarly. I do truly appreciate everyone's hard work, and I hope Page Curation will get the attention it deserves. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  04:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto, ditto and apb = "ditto". Hopefully nobody, devs included, takes the neg stuff personally. Devs are always the unsung heroes 'round here just like the rest of youse!  Paine   03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

PamD's discovery is a way to filter that mostly includes redirects because articles get categorized pretty quickly. Thanks User:MusikAnimal perhaps reports that list A-E, F-I etc? or created between this and that date. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to adjust your tool to be able to filter for redirects (and would you mind adding the functionality if so)? Thanks ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, there you go: slow and fast version. Rentier (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Is there any difference in output between the two versions? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be - the WMF-hosted version should be just a mirror of the fast one, which is hosted on my own server. Rentier (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixing redirects - two bugs
So I embarked on a session of reviewing redirects. I found a few which I thought inappropriate but not fitting into CSD categories, so I PRODded them, PROD being one of the options offered. An editor has now politely pointed out that Redirects are not eligible to be PRODded. So don't offer the option in the NPP interface, having detected that it's a redirect under examination.

I then realised I needed to RfD them. Yes, this option is on offer ... except that when I've entered the "details" and clicked on "Delete redirect" (or some such wording), I get a popup box saying "Location of discussion not available" (or words to that effect) and refusing to go further. I've found that I can RfD using Twinkle, but something is clearly broken here. Not a happy experience. But in general reviewing redirects is satisfying - lots of very sensible ones, some which need a bit of investigation, some which on investigation clearly need to be got rid of. Pam D  07:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing the effects of your work at RfD. Keep up the excellent work. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

redirect this page
I think this page should be redirected (or soft redirect) to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. — usernamekiran (talk)  08:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say that between this page, that page, and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol, I've definitely started a discussion on one and lost it among the others.  G M G  talk   08:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support "merge"'. While not really a merge, neither page is too active to have a centralized discussion space. I think this would better serve all of us to bring up issues in one place. Natureium (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Failed to apply tags to the page
Anybody else getting this error message randomly and often this morning? I'm at about a half dozen or so times I had to exit curator and use Twinkle because it...wouldn't do anything. G M G talk  14:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Not handling AfD renominations correctly?
Greetings! Recently, a user tried to dominate William Herp for deletion, and instead of adding the nomination at a new page Articles for deletion/William Herp (2nd nomination), it added it to the old archive from 2008. I'll be filing a task at Phabricator soon, but I'm hesitant to reproduce the bug due to the disruption it would cause. Can anyone else either A) testify that this is or is not what Page Curation normally does with repeat nominations or B) "give" me permission to move some stale draft from userspace to mainspace so that I can nominate it for deletion twice and find out? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is phab:T169441. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is anyone still handling this, or do I need to bring it up again? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have had the same problem but also with the CSD on redirects which gives this because the original redirect is outside the template. This problem doesn't arise with twinkle. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagging error
While stub-tagging a long series of one-line stubs about places in Chad that look like they were created by a script, I got the message "An error occurred while marking the page as reviewed: $1" several times. Most problematic is that it marked the page as patrolled but did not add the tag. It also didn't give me a dollar. Does anyone know what this error message means? Natureium (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * $1 shouldn't appear. That is phab:T85195. I don't know what the cause of the error is. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Is something wrong with autopatrolled at the moment? I've had a couple of my pages that have gone through page curation today (Jo Brandsma and Jacob Brandsma); I've been autopatrolled for many years (and admins are autopatrolled by default I believe). Who can shed some light on this? We don't want the NPP queue clogged with articles that should not require patrolling. , you usually sort out high level issues with page curation, don't you?  Schwede 66  23:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have to sign a post in the same edit to ping someone. Natureium (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only  very  high  level. I  retired officially  from  being  NPP's nanny  in  February 2017.  If there are bugs they  should be reported at  Phab, but  a quick word in  's ear may  bring  faster results. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * - I've just noticed the same thing. I've started this thread at WP:VPT to see if anyone can help. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the same thing is happening to me, does seem to be some issue. My last five articles have gone through page curation, despite the fact I have the autopatrolled user right (Edit conflict: Looks like Lugnuts is on top of it). Jevansen (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up,, , , and. It looks like this bug was accidentally caused by the WMF Community Tech team's work to improve and expand the New Pages Feed. The regression was caused as they refactored the code to make future improvements. I'm sorry that this is causing additional work for reviewers -- very frustrating. The team is working on a fix now. I'll be giving updates in the Village Pump conversation that started. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem - thank you for the update.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also noticed the issue; thanks to the commentors above for pointing out what is going on.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all -- I just wanted to come back here to let you know that the fix was deployed. Please see Village Pump for additional details, and please let me know if you still see any issues. Thank you for your patience. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)