WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) Set up archiving |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
⚫ | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
⚫ | |||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(91d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | I just created a new article on Energy Management Software and was looking for some feedback. See the discussion page for a brief note of how it is different from some similarly named articles. I'm trying to add references, any help would be appreciated {{unsigned2|01:11, 15 May 2009 |AHR Canuck37}} |
||
==How do you sign up?== |
==How do you sign up?== |
Revision as of 01:53, 12 November 2009
Advice on new article
I just created a new article on Energy Management Software and was looking for some feedback. See the discussion page for a brief note of how it is different from some similarly named articles. I'm trying to add references, any help would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHR Canuck37 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you sign up?
how do you sign up for the new pages patrol User: Physik
- Hi, sorry, but since your comment wasn't in a section, I put it in one for you. Thanks! --HAL2008 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to sign up – you just start doing it! You can follow the instructions on this page (not this talk page; click on the "project" tab above). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Stubs and short non-stubs
I've come here at the suggestion of another editor on the WikiProject Cricket Talk page (section heading: "I can't win!"). The discussion there was provoked by the fact that a short biographical article I wrote about a cricketer, William Adshead, had a stub tag added to it just a few minutes after I submitted it. There is a fair consensus in the WikiProject that articles such as Adshead's are not actually stubs despite their brevity: there are many cricketers about whom not that much is known, yet who pass the standards for notability (which in the case of cricketers means having played at first-class or List A level). Adshead is one of those, and since all the available significant details are already covered in his article, it shouldn't really be classed as a stub even though it's not all that long. Loganberry (Talk) 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Volunteering
I'm volunterringmy efforts, let me know if I should report that on a different page :) Mathiastck 10:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log."
Does anyone actually do this? I could cite dozens of examples of pages that got littered with tags (especially speedy tags) within minutes of creation. Morgan Wick 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do it (I added it to the page). The idea is it can be bitish to speedy a page created in good faith within one or two minutes of creation. Vandalism and obvious garbage I don't wait for.--Chaser - T 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else? Morgan Wick 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm doing that, but I just started doing new page patrol a few days ago, qualifying me as a newbie.--Evil1987 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else? Morgan Wick 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi I created this bot to make reports here of users removing speedy tag on articles they created, I'm just waiting on approval for a trial run. --Chris g 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process
There is discussion about adding a ten day delay into the A7 CSD process, since that would affect this wiki project significantly, I am posting a link to the discussion to obtain wider input from the community. --Fredrick day 14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process
[WikiEN-l] Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia
From the mailing list:
“ | In the time since late 2005 the English Wikipedia community has grown substantially. The nearly exponential growth rate in articles we
previously experienced has stopped. Even if disabling anon page creation was beneficial then, there is no current evidence suggesting that the change continues to be beneficial. As such, barring complications, anonymous page creation will be re-enabled on English Wikipedia on Friday November 9th. After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this decision using previously established methods (average article lifespan, rate of deletion, manual quality classification, random samplings of newly created articles, and most importantly, community discussion). If there is evidence of harm, anonymous page creation will be disabled to collect more data and provide time for discussion. If there is no significant evidence of harm, the issue will be evaluated again after six months. Further milestones and actions may be proposed at that time. |
” |
Original post: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html . Better optimize those speedy deletion scripts, we're going to need them a lot more.
Discussion to WP:VPP#Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia please. MER-C 09:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Patrolling enabled
New pages patrolling seems to have been enabled. So now you can mark a page as patrolled, making it easier for new page patrollers to coordinate patrolling. Thue | talk 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think this should be reflected in the text of this page as well. huji—TALK 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Learning to rate new articles
I've been a vandal patroller for a long time. Now I think I'll help out with New pages patrol - but it's a lot harder. I've read WP:CSD, etc. but many articles are judgment calls and judgment is something that takes time to develop. What I'd like to do is list some pages that I patrolled and ask the experts why they rated {{db-bio}}, {{notability}}, or a pass. Here's the first one: Ralph Pulitzer. At the very least it should get an {{unreferenced}}, but does it deserve db-bio or a notability tag or any other tags? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ralph Pulitzer (1879-1939) son of newspaper magnate, etc. makes it very likely there is reliable sources material for the article. No A7. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's the second: Pearl Slaghoople, a fictional character from Fred Flintstone. I would have given it a CSD-A7 but another new pages patroller apparently accepted it (it wasn't marked yellow). Wikipedia has a LOT of articles about TV shows - are ALL of them notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would CSD-A7 Pearl Slaghoople. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Is William Donner Roosevelt notable?
- The speedy delete question is not notable (WP:N), the speedy delete question is whether the article lists reasonable assertion of "importance/significance." William Donner Roosevelt is not a speedy delete candidate. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Should I just go ahead and mark things for CSD knowing that someone else will review in case I am wrong? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. No other way to learn. I usually pick up the candidates on this page: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- No. You should be trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes that means deleting stuff, but usually it means finding references (which won't always be found on the first Google page) and adding information. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Filtering Special:Newpages
I've set up an RSS feed to filter only video-game related articles from the new pages feed. Maybe other WikiProject want to do the same. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New articles RSS feed. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:19
India is one of the worst culprits for spamming the English Wikipedia
A high number of adverts, copyright infringements and incoherent pages are obviously related to India. It can be understood given the country's massive population and the fact that the people with Internet access are very likely to understand English, but on the whole they definitely seem less likely to understand Wikipedia's purpose than those in places such as Europe or the USA - it seems to be a sad fact. This is certainly not to say that no spam comes from Europe or the USA - very far from it - but India is probably the country that generates the greatest number of these types of pages when I'm looking over new pages patrol. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- My experience is that the kind of spammish new pages we get ebbs and flows with the time of day, who happens to be actively creating pages, etc. But assuming the section title is true, so what? What difference does it make except that perhaps some of our Indian editors are better placed to judge whether something qualifies as A7 or should go through another process?--chaser - t 10:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've noticed this trend as well. It is what it is and new page patrollers need to treat these like any other new article and tag it appropriately. While its great that we are getting so many new articles on small villiages in India. It's very very rare that there are any references included at all. I have to remind myself of WP:BITE after tagging the 10th autobiography in a row on some non-notable engineer.
--RadioFan (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Essay that touches on New pages patrol
Newpage patrollers may be interested in the essay Write the Article First, which touches on NPP. Comments/changes/additions are of course welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
View oldest non-patrolled?
By experimenting with the offset parameter in the url I discovered that there are more than 14,000 pages that have not been patrolled - and who knows how many older than one month. Could we get an "oldest" button to make it easier to patrol old articles before they disappear unpatrolled from the list of new pages? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Moving to VPR. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Help for the Spanish wiki
Hello fellows from the English wikipedia, I work hard patroling new pages in the Spanish wikipedia and have 2 questions for you. Since, your community is much bigger than ours, maybe you came up with tools that could help us, you are probably top hi-tech here. I a looking for a way to filter the authors of new pages. I do rely on a lot of authors and don't really need to double check their new pages. It would be great to filter the new pages with the authors than I don't include in a trusted authors page. The another thing I was wondering is if you have discovered a way to find out which wikipedia user (if any) is behind an IP address. You can also use me as link to the Spanish wikipedia in the case that you need anything and don't know whom to talk. If possible, please drop me an answer HERE as well. Thanks a lot in advance, all the best, --Little by little (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship
Over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, new page patrols are being discussed. I keep coming across things like the following. The article titled Bochica was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's "patent nonsense", then deleted on the grounds that there's not enough context to identify the subject. That is irresponsible newbie-biting. That is willful stupidity. I had never heard of the topic, but found hits on Wikipedia and Google right away. Apparently the two users who did this didn't bother. That's how new pages are getting patrolled. I restored the page.
Why must new page patrolling be done only by people who are idiots because they choose to be idiots? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I gently agree with some of your comments - some people seem to be a bit over-zealous when patrolling new pages or new usernames. There should be some guidelines about deleting pages or reporting new users - at least use the (Welcome) template first unless the new user is making clearly bad-faith contributions. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- This thread is more active atWT:RFA. Please go there so as to avoid forking the discussion. Thanks!--chaser - t 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll comment here, because my comments are directed at people doing new page patrol and not people going for adminship. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Here's an example of odd tagging. The tag says "This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material", thus the article is inappropriately tagged, and the tagger did not bother to contact the articles author. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Commenting here because I am making a suggestion for this project page, rather than commenting on practice or behaviour. I see one of the articles mentioned as inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion at WT:RFA was the article entitled Bochica, which was actually listed as a missing encyclopaedia article ( presumably because the EB has an article on the subject). Would it be useful to have a few more hints on the project page including something like: "Even if the article appears to be nonsense, or notability is not asserted, if there is any doubt consider checking "What links here" to see if the article has been requested? If so, make a special effort to find references or otherwise improve the article in order to avoid the article being inappropriately tagged. --Boson (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'll try to keep that in mind even if it doesn't get to the project page. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Fictional numbers, policies, etc.
I agree with Boson, and I proposed that policy a few months ago and got shot down. The occasion was the idiotic proposed speedy deletion of the venerable article MathWorld as allegedly "blatant advertising". It was created when Wikipedia was unknown and the MathWorld website was universally known and respected, so the idea that it was intended as advertising is laughable, and there was no link to the company allegedly being advertised. Nearly 1500 pages linked to it! Most of those links were added by respectable professionals with no interest in advertising MathWorld, but acutely aware (as who is not?) of its renown. So I proposed a policy at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: CHECK FOR LINKS TO THE ARTICLE. If there are more than 1000 of them, as in that case, check out the situation before speedily deleting.
I keep seeing good article tagged for speedy deletion thoughtlessly. So I raised this issue. As a result, I found out that there is such a thing as "new page patrols", and that this present page with policies on it exist. I have been told repeatedly that 90% or 95% of pages marked for speedy deletions really should be speedily deleted. I think those numbers are just fiction. They're simply made up. Maybe someone counts the cases where someone complains and is proved right. How do we know there aren't MANY good article speedily deleted whose newbie authors then go away disenchanted with Wikipedia and are never heard from again?
The answer would have to be some kind of systematic patrolling of the patrols. I don't know how best to do that efficiently. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that some speedy deletion is wrong, or borderline. THere are a few occasions when PRODding would have been better. Good luck trying to get some numbers on it though. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh ... y'know, I've been commenting for a while now on AfD my wonderment at some of these lightning AfD nominations, saying "What, is there a prize for being the one who gets the most articles deleted in three minutes or less?" Now I find out that this is true. For my money, for anything less than a blatant CSD candidate, there's no way any editor alive can take the time to assess the notability and verifiability less than ninety seconds after creation, and I will aggressively Oppose any RfA candidate who engages in this practice. Heck, I would be pleased as punch if a new rule was put in forbidding filing an AfD on anything short of a WP:BLP violation within 72 hours of an article's creation. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not treating WP:NPP as a bloody competitive video game, and it would be a good thing if more experienced admins clued in the more rabid bombardiers. RGTraynor 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Watching" this page
Is there a way to "watch" the new pages page, or a simple way to click there, other than manually typing in the address, or clicking help and searching for new page patrolling? Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you asking about Special:NewPages? No, you can't watch it, but there are two easy ways to get to it. On the left side of just about every page, under the Search box, you can click Special pages, then click New pages. Or you can use your browser to make a bookmark to the NewPages page. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I usually use the link in the NPP userbox on my user page as a quick link to Special:Newpages. (Side note: I also created a similar box of my own with a link to the deletion log, as I frequently troll that page looking for blue links.) --Finngall talk 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
To encourage not biting newbies...
Could people please make sure to use the {{welcome}} and {{firstarticle}} templates instead of the usual speedy warnings when creating user-talk pages? I tend to look through WP:LSD for badly-tagged speedies when I've got the time, and I've noticed that few of the users who've created these pages have been welcomed. Their talk pages are usually just a single {{nn-warn}} or {{spam-warn}} or something like that. The first interaction these users are having is with the WP:NPP and it doesn't appear that they're being notified about the speedies courteously. WP:NPP#Being nice already suggests welcoming new users, but I'd suggest also adding that, when creating a user talk page with a warning template, the {{firstarticle}} template should be used. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this. Some editors sign up with what appears to be a role account, and then either create articles about their organisation, or add links to their website to relevant articles. They're clearly violating several important WP policies, and that needs to stop. But huge numbers of potentially useful editors are being driven away (and blocked) when a quick explanation of COI and role account policy could turn them into useful editors. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- People don't seem to be giving any time either, as suggested by the project page, as many articles are being csd'd 1 minute after creation. xenocidic (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Template to help new page patrollers
A lot of people are tagging new pages with CSD:A7 minutes after they are created. I am very lazy and was hoping there was a template to add to these peoples talk pages to suggest they patrol from the bottom up and not bite the newbies. Azazyel (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, per my comment above. xenocidic (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Reporting House
There have been three speedy delete tags for spam placed on the article Reporting House today, two by me and a third by another editor.[1] All three have been removed by the writer of the piece. (I also removed two fake references on the page, which have so far remained deleted). Is there anyone this should be reported to? --seahamlass 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hide patrolled pages?
Is it just me that no longer has this option? I still have the hide bots option on Special:newpages. Paulbrock (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- seems to have fixed itself! Paulbrock (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Spotting page recereations
I've noticed some pages have tags on their initial creation e.g. Dan Lucas, which has a tag dating from 6 months before creation. Now this to me says a recreated page, but I can't find it under Special:Log under Dan Lucas or Dan lucas. Should I be looking somewhere else to see if it's been deleted in the past, or am I missing something? Paulbrock (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Flag templates for deletion warnings
Hello, fellow editors ...
In an effort to deal with the problem of proposed deletions and speedy deletions that occur Too Quickly, I have created a Protocol to minimize friction from proposed deletions and speedy deletions to flag dubious articles and possibly improve them, or else delete them according to the established policies.
As an example, I have flagged Dan Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) using the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol ... I have placed messages on both the article's and the author's talk pages, and will check it again next week.
I invite any comments or feedback from you about these templates and the protocols, which are designed to be used as "stencils" or "templates" in a second browser tab for easy copy&paste while editing ... so far, the biggest complaint has been, "It's too complicated," to which my reply has been, "Well, then just forget you ever saw it, and Move On." :-)
Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting, though a bit tricky to get my head round on first glance. So as I see it - there would now be an explanation of prod/speedy on the article's talk page and notify the user before moving onto speedy? Would you want to add Template:Flag-editor, then Template:prodwarning/Template:adw as well? And presumably this would only be used when you weren't sure about deletion, or would it be used all the time?
- Speedy criteria are supposed to be applied on sight as I understand it, the point is the article is unsalvageable. Prods are different but at least there's 5 days of recovery time available. The easiest way to not bite the newbies is to patrol pages from the START of the list not the pages that are only 2 minutes old and under construction. Paulbrock (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is to flag it (with Template:Flag-editor and Template:Flag-article), wait a few days, and then see how it looks ... if you decide then to PROD or CSD, then you would also place a Template:prodwarning/Template:adw as a courtesy ... also, if a PROD is contested, it should be documented with a Template:Oldprodfull so that it won't be PRODed again.
- See the talk page for Daryn Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example of an article that was improved by flagging it ... so it's only for the "potentially salvageable." —72.75.78.69 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You might also want to take a look at {{Hasty}}, which deals with hasty tagging after the fact. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thnx! Never knew it was there ... I'll try to work it into the most appropriate place(s). —72.75.78.69 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What's that template?
Help!! ... What is the name of the template that says, "This article was deleted by CSD or PROD, but it has been restored."?? ... I saw it on some article, and I want to add its usage to the WP:FLAG-PROTOCOLs ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
patrol whitelist bot
Hi, I have been running a bot of Wikisource that automatically marks new pages as patrolled if they meet certain criteria. It has been suggested to me that I run the bot on enWP as well, so I have initiated a request. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag templates redux
Hello again ...
I have modified Template:Flag-article and Template:Flag-editor so that (a) failure to "subst:" generates an error, (b) offering to assist in the message is optional, and (c) they populate Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors ... any feedback?
Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oldest unpatrolled pages
Further to the thread up above, unpatrolled pages remain flagged as such for 720 hours, or 30 days. This link shows the end of the queue.
There are currently unpatrolled pages going back a month. In other words, they are expiring from the queue. Many are legitimate articles that deserve to stay, but there are many that have never had another set of eyes on them, slipped through with only a bot tagging or so, that can be speedied, prodded or AfD'd.
Can some NP patrollers drop in on the other end from time to time? A concerted effort will reduce the backlog and ensure every new page gets patrolled by at least one experienced user. There'll be a lot less friction, and no accusations of biting new contributors as they'll have be given more days to get things in order. Thanks. --Stephen 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I really don't see the point in patrolling 3-minute old pages which may well be in the midst of further editing, when there are 20 and 30 day old stubs that need attention. Admittedly by a lot of the obviously unsuitable stuff has long gone by then, but like Stephen says, that end of the queue still needs attention. I wonder as well if there's any way to automatically tick off the pages which have been tagged or afded/proded/speedied? From my understanding, editors have to explicitly click "mark as patrolled", which only appears if you go to the page from New Pages...Paulbrock (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there is a bot who does this. At least, there was. Plrk (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Patrolling
I imagine that patrolling my own articles is out of the question? What about talk pages I create, ie adding templates for Wikiprojects/assessments? Typically, talk pages do not appear on the default New Pages log, so often go unnoticed. Do they even need patrolling? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Issues with a patroller
There is a "recent changes patroller" named Rami who is uncivil and should be monitored. I believe he is letting the power go to his head. He threatens and he appears to be omniscient. He is in Israel and does not want to change dates and add events on the Jonathan Pollard page which are factually correct. i am giving up on your website. I don't like being bullied by unknown creepy people, especially when i have specific facts to improve a page. Kindly refer to my messages in "my talk" to a supervisor for review. You have some dangerous people "volunteering". I'll stick to published encyclopedias for the time being. The Pollard Page is an example of omissions and deletions.
This website appears to be excellent for movies,& celebrity trivia which is now the only reason i will take your word for anything.
Furtive admirer (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- First, the recent changes patrol isn't here, but I'll attempt to field this anyway. It appears that some of your edits to Jonathan Pollard are somewhat less than useful (using the diff given by User:Rami R), and he is correct to warn you about them. I suggest you take a look at our policies on verifiability and original research as well as our biographies of living persons policy, then hopefully you will see what is wrong with adding those sorts of statements to articles. Some of your assumptions about Rami R are also way off base, we are all volunteers here and to assume otherwise is a gross violation of some of our behavioural guidelines. I suggest you take some time and cool off, then go back to editing somewhere else. There are 2.3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, I'm sure you can find something interesting where you won't run into Rami. If problems continue after you have moved on, I suggest taking the issues to dispute resolution. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thanx 4 the rsvp. i really have had enough. this is very time consuming and offers no personal satisfaction. it is not like i want any credit, just the facts published correctly and not sourced out with propaganda written as 'ostensible fact" in articles in national magagzines. i'll let someone else take the reins.
thanx again. Furtive admirer (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Notification of speedy deletion tags
Hi. There is a current discussion at talk:CSD about the possibility of strengthening the encouragement of CSD taggers to notify creators. Please feel free to join in there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Redirects?
Apologies in advance if this question has been asked before. It appears that new redirects do not appear on Special:NewPages (can someone confirm?). Since there is a WP:CSD reason (R3) that allows for speedy deletion of certain redirects, but only if they are newly created, it would seem valuable to patrol new redirects as well (either on Special:NewPages or through a different mechanism like a separate Special page). I have run into a number of cases where I would have liked to have deleted the redirect under R3, but since there was no way to pick it up on pator, I missed the window and had to go through the much greater PITA RfD process. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
New essay about spam, business articles, and notability.
Greetings all. As an occasional new page patroller and longtime contributor, I recently wrote an essay about the use and misuse of speedy deletion, entitled "Not all business articles are spam". Please, read it and give me your feedback, either on the essay's talk page or my own user talk page. I am eager to hear your opinions about this subject. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Private equity articles
I wanted to bring your attention to some of the work we, the Private Equity Task Force, are doing in the private equity and venture capital universe. We know that for most Wikipedians it is difficult to discern a notable PE or VC firm from the hundreds if not thousands of non-notable firms.
We have created a list of some of the most notable private equity firms not currently on Wikipedia. This is not a comprehensive list but should you notice a firm on that list we would ask that you give the firm the benefit of the doubt from a notability perspective and quickly alert the PE Task Force so we can help rescue a troubled article. Also, we have collected some PE-related resources and some thoughts on what to look for in discerning whether a firm may be notable. If you want to discuss any new articles or stubs we can help with any of those discussions and would ask to be alerted to any proposed AfD debates.
Our goals are :
- Protect and nurture notable PE related articles
- Prevent Wikipedia from clogging up with non-notable articles
- Encouraging new Wikipedians with an interest in finance and private equity
Thanks |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
NPP: guideline for Categorization needs a minor modification
Problem: There are thousands of uncategorized pages in system as of now and they are sort of lost pages and remain so till someone hits them accidentally and puts it in proper category after that chances of page improvement/maintenance improves.
The current guideline says either tag it with 'uncat' or try to find a category for it, can this be modified a bit to say either find and add a category for it (may be Category:Fundamental category) or ask page creator to do that (since page creater is a registered Wikipedian so this shouldn't be tough part). Another thing that could be done is create fundamental uncat-categories on lines of Category:Fundamental and assign the page to that (I would prefer former approach). Pl note I am not saying adding 'stub category' as I find it as good as 'uncat' category and both leads to lost pages and page creation time is the best time to tackle this problem (nip it in the bud). Vjdchauhan (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (my main contribution on WP is related to page categorization)
Reviewing tool
While reviewing talk pages, I see many semi-automatic creation of rating page. Is there a way to tag all of them automatically, Is there a tool\bot that doing so? --OsamaK 22:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
NEW user association of Wikimedia to represent interests of all people who patrol in ALL wiki's
Greetings, ALL!
For those of you who are familiar with Wikipedian associations, specifically the ones on Wikimedia, I have started a new one for people who patrol wiki's or are interested in patrolling. For those not familiar with these associations, drop by and check it out. It's open to all people so come and see what you want it to become. Feel free to start new pages when you get there!!
More information can be found here.
Thanks!
fr33kman (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: This is NOT spam or an inappropriate post it is about a genuine new Wikipedian association on wikimedia.org!
Special:Log/patrol
On the Swedish Wikipedia, sv:Special:Log/patrol lists the version number of each revision patrolled - even though it is only new pages (like here).en:Special:Log/patrol does not. Does anyone know what MediaWiki system message to edit to remove this? Plrk (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it: MediaWiki:Patrol-log-line. Plrk (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Bot to help index pages that slip through
I have made a bot request (Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Index of unpatrolled, expired "New Pages") that, if created, would help new page patrollers manage the backlog of unpatrolled pages. You may want to voice your ideas at the bot request. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that could be a good idea. I know that a lot of them are by newbies that don't know their way around, but the backlog of ridiculous new pages is getting... well ridiculous! We must come up with a better system for dealing with this. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to limit the creation of new articles
I've written down some thoughts about a proposal to limit the creation of new articles, while allowing anonymous users to create articles (which is not the case now). Your thoughts and comments will be highly valued, see User:Plrk/On the creation of articles. Plrk (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Automatic patrolling after a tag is added
I don't know if this is the best place to ask this, but I'll carry on regardless! Myself and User:Otherlleft wondered whether it would be possible for the software to be updated somehow so that if a tag is added (eg a speedy, PROD, XfD, notability etc) the article is automatically marked as being patrolled. The reasoning behind this is that when I NPP, I (and I'm sure many others) often find an article that hasn't been patrolled, but has been tagged.
It may be better suited to a bot to go through unpatrolled pages looking for a tag, and then marking it as patrolled, but I know nothing about scripting such things.
Any thoughts or comments? --Ged UK (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is a somewhat similar bot already; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2 and User:JVbot. Contact the author and ask if that functionality could be added! (You could also point him to this discussion, of course.) I think it's a great idea. Plrk (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- My bot could do this without much trouble; I would probably implement it as a second whitelist of tags that would indicate the page has been sufficiently "acted upon". Before I implement it, it would be nice to see some discussion and agreement on some tags which mean a page no longer needs more NPP eyes on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brilliant! Let's see what we can come up with then, then I'll get back to you. --Ged UK (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd sure like to see that since it'd cut down on the number of things needed to do when tagging. Eeekster (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would fully support setting pages marked with speedy delete tags as patrolled, but not pages marked with tags such as advert, notability, prod. . .Rcawsey (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is the issue around the PROD tag? Are you OK with XfD tags (usually AfD), or would you rather just CSD? --GedUK 11:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Rcawsey. I think this is a great idea and will cut back on redundancy and save users' time. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 11:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please see questions benethe Rcawsey's response. --GedUK 11:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good idea. For users of Twinkle, it automatically marks a page as patrolled when you tag it, but this would be good for all those tags that get placed by other methods. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Does it? I'd not noticed that! --GedUK 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Supported. Babakathy (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- To echo someone else's comment, yes, Twinkle does this automatically, and it's very nice. Judging from the way this is implemented in the MediaWiki PHP code (since NPP is controlled by a query string on the URL), it would probably be more complicated for one of the devs to implement natively than it is for us to use TW. §FreeRangeFrog 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I just stumbled across something that I hadn't thought of. If, for example, you are patrolling from here instead of here Twinkle won't mark the page as patrolled. That should be showing up as a bug (or FR) there soon. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, because if you look at the format of the URLs that take you to the pages in the standard NPP section you'll see something like
...rcid=281178407&redirect=no
, which is what makes the MW software place the small "mark as patrolled" link at the bottom and also what Twinkle uses to do mark the page for you when you place a tag in it. §FreeRangeFrog 17:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)- I knew that, but I thought maybe there'd be a way with Twinkle to have it hit a different url when you execute the tag. But maybe that's asking too much. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- There was some new MediaWiki functionality (bugzilla:15936) that allowed marking a page as patrolled from wherever you came, but it was disabled again since it had a performance impact (and some other problems). Once it's re-enabled Twinkle can be taught to mark it patrolled no matter where you came from, it can't be done without the rcid. --Amalthea 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I knew that, but I thought maybe there'd be a way with Twinkle to have it hit a different url when you execute the tag. But maybe that's asking too much. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, because if you look at the format of the URLs that take you to the pages in the standard NPP section you'll see something like
- I just stumbled across something that I hadn't thought of. If, for example, you are patrolling from here instead of here Twinkle won't mark the page as patrolled. That should be showing up as a bug (or FR) there soon. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I agree also. This is a good idea. Marek.69 talk 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea to make NPP easier. I'd say the bot should patrol every page that is tagged with deletion or maintenance tags by someone other than the creator, an IP or newbie editor as to avoid that people can circumvent this bot. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I Disagree. If a page is marked as patrolled then it becomes a race between the admin patrolling CSD and the author as to whether the article gets deleted or the tag is removed, and with our current admin shortage I'm often looking at speedies that were tagged many hours ago. I think what we really need is a three colour system for new articles: patrolled, unpatrolled and tagged for speedy but not yet deleted, that way if the author untags an article it would revert to unpatrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to a point, but I for one have started patrolling the abuse filter log, which provides admins (possibly other editors too, i can't remember) with a list of articles that have had speedy tags removed. I then go back through the history, check who removed the template, and delete as necessary. --GedUK 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I Disagree. If a page is marked as patrolled then it becomes a race between the admin patrolling CSD and the author as to whether the article gets deleted or the tag is removed, and with our current admin shortage I'm often looking at speedies that were tagged many hours ago. I think what we really need is a three colour system for new articles: patrolled, unpatrolled and tagged for speedy but not yet deleted, that way if the author untags an article it would revert to unpatrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great idea to make NPP easier. I'd say the bot should patrol every page that is tagged with deletion or maintenance tags by someone other than the creator, an IP or newbie editor as to avoid that people can circumvent this bot. Regards SoWhy 20:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Does it? I'd not noticed that! --GedUK 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good idea. For users of Twinkle, it automatically marks a page as patrolled when you tag it, but this would be good for all those tags that get placed by other methods. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please see questions benethe Rcawsey's response. --GedUK 11:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Whitelist suggestions
My intial thoughts are:
- any of the CSD tags (eg {{db-bio}} or any other at Wikipedia:CSD)
- {{advert}}
- {{likeresume}}
- {{notability}}
- {{PROD}}
- {{afd1}}
I'm sure there are plenty of others, however, sometimes articles are started with tags included, like wikify or unreferenced, because the author knows that work needs to be done, but can't do it themselves. --Ged UK (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- A full list of CSD tags can be found at Category:Speedy deletion templates. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am in full support for this suggestion. Also can be auto patrol articles which are created by well - established editors? --Anshuk (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the problem with that is settling on a definition of 'well-established'. I can think of a few editors who've been here for years but still create what I would call less than high-quality articles and edits. I think that the effort of working out a list of criteria or of users would be more hassle than it's worth. --Ged UK (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Currently the only users who are auto-patrolled are administrators and bots. lifebaka++ 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the problem with that is settling on a definition of 'well-established'. I can think of a few editors who've been here for years but still create what I would call less than high-quality articles and edits. I think that the effort of working out a list of criteria or of users would be more hassle than it's worth. --Ged UK (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am in full support for this suggestion. Also can be auto patrol articles which are created by well - established editors? --Anshuk (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- i like it, an excellent idea. not sure if advert indicates sufficiently acted upon tho. Mission Fleg (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've no problem with taking out advert, though clearly keep the speedy-spam. --Ged UK (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- yup agreed, definitely keep the speedy-spam. Mission Fleg (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've no problem with taking out advert, though clearly keep the speedy-spam. --Ged UK (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- All deletion nominations should be considered as having the article patrolled - CSD, PROD and AFD. Plrk (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just those, or others as well? --Ged UK (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any deletion processes except speedy deletion, proposed deletion and articles for deletion? Plrk (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's it as far as I know. What I meant was any other tags, like {{notability}} or {{advert}}, which might also indicate a page has been patrolled, as it's unlikely an author would attach those themselves. --Ged UK (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are other WP:XFD processes for other namespaces, but WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and XFD represent all the forms of deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is a great idea, it will save time and cut back on the amount that has to be doneMacromonkey (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are other WP:XFD processes for other namespaces, but WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and XFD represent all the forms of deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's it as far as I know. What I meant was any other tags, like {{notability}} or {{advert}}, which might also indicate a page has been patrolled, as it's unlikely an author would attach those themselves. --Ged UK (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any deletion processes except speedy deletion, proposed deletion and articles for deletion? Plrk (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just those, or others as well? --Ged UK (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Other Tags
I agree with the deletion tags, but other frequently-used ones might be worth considering, as they suggest patrolling by their nature. Especially when patrolling the backlog of new pages I tend to use less CSD and more tags like {{verify}}, {{references}}, and {{uncategorized}}. When added by an editor I think those should be sufficient, although I don't know if I would agree if it were bot-added.--otherlleft (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about this, embarassingly, but anyway. Do we have consensus, or should I try and get some regular patrollers to comment? --Ged UK (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree on the above list, but expand to any of the clean-up tags. Babakathy (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the cleanup tags; some people do put them on in the first draft, while making an article. I know I've seen a couple people add {{references}} right off, recognizing that their start may not be sufficient. But I wouldn't have any great problem with the bot marking those as patrolled, and it would be lovely for it to do the basic deletion tags at least. —Switchercat talkcont 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with CSD, PROD, AfD, because I think it can be assumed that whoever applies one of those tags will watchlist the article and keep an eye on it case, say the tag is removed and/or the article is improved. Not so sure about the other tags - maybe better to leave it up to the tagging editor to choose whether to mark "patrolled" if he's satisfied no more needs to be done, but to leave it "unpatrolled" if he thinks some more eyes would be helpful. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What about when a bot adds a tag? Will that tag make the article be marked patrolled even though no one has looked at the article? (Orphan tagging come to mind...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the discussion certainly seems to be leaning towards only deletion tags, in which case no bot would tag things with a deletion tag. --GedUK 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- You guys need to think about how easy to game this would be before going any further. I create a new account, write up a long gushing article about my unremarkable company or post-goth nerdcore christian synthpop band, then I log off, add a bunch of tags, check the patrol log for a while until I see my page being given the thumbs up by the bot, log back in and Bob's my uncle. Once a page makes it past NPP, it's clear sailing and blue skies for spammers, vandals, nigerian princes and hoax purveyors. I'm not saying this isn't a good idea, just that you need to look at it from other angles. §FreeRangeFrog 19:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns, but that is what this discussion is for. I think we should keep the auto patrol bot to the deletion tags. I am not convinced that this will be excessively abused by people 'gaming' the system. I am all for moving forward with the deletion tagged articles.--Adam in MO Talk 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think those are fair points. I would suggest therefore that we limit it to deletion tags. In your example, the only tags that you could add that would trigger the bot would be CSD, AfD or PROD, any of which would mean that the article would get reviewd by either an admin or the AFD people, or it would be deleted after 5 days. The only issue I could see there is that you could get a lot of publicity off a poor page in 5 days, so perhaps we shouldn't have PRODs, thus ensuring that all articles tagged by the pot as being patrolled would get at least one other human looking at them. Is that an adequate check and balance process? --GedUK 19:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- PRODs are checked by a number of prod patrollers soon after they are added, including myself--I check every one that is relevant to things I know about once every day or two. anything which cannot sit around for 5 days should be speedied. Prod as well as speedy and XfD could be included. DGG (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, because anyone can add a CSD or PROD tag to an article, and anyone can remove them as well. PROD, specifically, and even CSD if I'm quick enough to avoid having an admin see it in the queue. So again, I can create my page, add a PROD tag using another IP or account, sit back and wait for it to be marked by the bot, then go back in and remove it. The only tag that wouldn't fly in these cases would be AfD, but I don't need it because I have PROD anyway. Does that make sense? I understand where this discussion is coming from, I routinely load articles in the NPP queue jut to see they already have a CSD tag. But I think there ar good reasons as to why this process has to involve sentient beings :) §FreeRangeFrog 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- What would stop you from creating an article and marking it patrolled on another account now? I didn't realize this proposal is for tags where human involvement was evident. I think that's reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I know that you can't do it from your own account (can't patrol what you created), but internally it might be IP-based, rather than account-based, in which case it would certainly be more robust. I'd need to look at the code and I don't have it in this computer. I've honestly never tried logging off and trying to patrol something I've created. §FreeRangeFrog 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- What would stop you from creating an article and marking it patrolled on another account now? I didn't realize this proposal is for tags where human involvement was evident. I think that's reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, because anyone can add a CSD or PROD tag to an article, and anyone can remove them as well. PROD, specifically, and even CSD if I'm quick enough to avoid having an admin see it in the queue. So again, I can create my page, add a PROD tag using another IP or account, sit back and wait for it to be marked by the bot, then go back in and remove it. The only tag that wouldn't fly in these cases would be AfD, but I don't need it because I have PROD anyway. Does that make sense? I understand where this discussion is coming from, I routinely load articles in the NPP queue jut to see they already have a CSD tag. But I think there ar good reasons as to why this process has to involve sentient beings :) §FreeRangeFrog 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to say much the same thing. The current system isn't foolproof, and i'm really not sure how likely your scenario is to happen. Plenty of articles near the end of the NPP a month after creation shouldhave been tagged long before, and hopefully this bot can free up time for more human eyes to look at articles sooner. --GedUK 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The key is whether or not the check for self-patrol is IP address or account based. If the former then it really makes no difference. On the other hand if the check is by IP then the bot would make it easy to game. I don't have another account so I can't test this (and I'm behind a proxy right now anyway). I can look at the MediaWiki code when I get home and figure it out. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at
Article.php@1650
and thereabouts, it seems that the patrol is not IP-based, so I guess this bot won't make much difference from an abuse standpoint. §FreeRangeFrog 02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to say much the same thing. The current system isn't foolproof, and i'm really not sure how likely your scenario is to happen. Plenty of articles near the end of the NPP a month after creation shouldhave been tagged long before, and hopefully this bot can free up time for more human eyes to look at articles sooner. --GedUK 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds real good to me. Twinkle automatically does this, but only if the page was accessed from Special:Newpages. Aside from the effort it would place on bot designers/maintainers, I don't see much reason not to go with this. Although yeah, let's keep it to deletion tags. - Vianello (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible for the bot to tell if the tag was placed by an utoconfirmed editor? DGG (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like it, yeah. NPP is actually controlled by a permission called
autopatrol
, which I assume is implicit to autoconf users. §FreeRangeFrog 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like it, yeah. NPP is actually controlled by a permission called
- I don't know if this is off-topic, but if the bot could write the name of the tagger, the kind of tag, and the wikilinked name of the page into an edit summary and/or onto some kind of log page every time a page is tagged for speedy deletion, then I could get an RSS feed of that bot's contribs (AFAIK, only contrib pages have RSS feeds) to be notified that there are deletions to be made in real time. If I particularly want to jump on any db-attack or db-copyvio pages but don't have time for more, I could filter the feed. Likewise, if I've been working with a particular set of taggers and want to keep an eye on them, I could filter the feed to watch for just their tags. I could also filter to look just for speedies, even if the bot makes a notation for XfD and prods as well. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The action of patrolling does not permit a log message to be recorded. However, the bot could write its own log on a page in the bots userspace, or it could email the log to a NPP mailing list hourly/daily/whatever.
The bot will be inspecting the tags, so it is feasible that it could set of alarm bells :- if you want a feed of just those I can generate one from the toolserver. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- The action of patrolling does not permit a log message to be recorded. However, the bot could write its own log on a page in the bots userspace, or it could email the log to a NPP mailing list hourly/daily/whatever.
- Something on the toolserver would be great; people are asking for feedback on CSD tagging a lot, and without data, it's hard to answer the questions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- If this is implemented, it would be a good thing to make sure it only applies to tags added by autoconfirmed users who are not the ones who created the page. DS (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Consensus
Right, I think we've probably reached a consensus. As I see it, all the deletion tags are acceptable to just about everybody, with a couple of concerns over PRODs. Other maintanence tags are slightly more tricky, so I would suggest that we leave those for now and see how we get on. I'll steer John Vandenberg back here as it's his bot that will do this. --GedUK 09:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Auto archiving threads on this talk page
We can use User:MiszaBot II to auto archive threads on this page. I don't see a con. But I need to have a consensus from everyone before I can configure it. Let me know if you have any views on this. --Anshuk (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In 18months or so, there's 40 threads, including this one. I would have thought archiving threads over 3 months old would be fine, as we don't want the page to be blank. If, and I've a vague feeling Miszabot can make sure that there's content left, the page maintains content, maybe even a month. I wouldn't have thought shorter than that was necessary, this doesn't seem to get a lot of talk. --Ged UK (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
New templates
Hi, I'm trying to set up something based on this
10 latest anon edits |
---|
{{:Special:Recentchanges/10,hideliu,hidepatrolled}}
|
but for new templates. I can work around new pages,
10 newest page |
---|
{{Special:Newpages/10}}
|
but can't figure out how to modify the code to show only new templates. Can anyone helps? Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Using the drop-down menu at Special:Newpages, you can set the namespace on "template". Does that solve your problem? (Direct link: [2]) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- But I can't wrap it around {{}} like this {{:Special:NewPages&namespace=10}}, can I?
- {{:Special:NewPages&namespace=10}}
- nope, I can't. Anyway, the case is that I want to put that shiny box in my user page. Going to the Special page is defeating the purpose. Bennylin (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have documented the transclusion interface of mw:Help:New_pages.
- You want {{Special:Newpages/limit=10,namespace=Template}}
10 newest templates {{Special:Newpages/limit=10,namespace=Template}}
- Another interesting use of transclusion is imperfect "last seven days of unpatrolled pages"; see User:Jayvdb/NPP7 (it hurts the database so dont load it often)
- John Vandenberg (chat) 10:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It doesn't work on Recentchanges though:
10 RC on Template namespace |
---|
{{Special:Recentchanges/limit=10,namespace=Template}}
|
- Hello, transcluding the templates in this thread was causing issues with UNIQ tags and other stuff (at least on my version of Firefox). I have added nowiki tags to the transclusions above to suppress the issue. If the thread continues, please remember to remove nowiki tags where appropriate so the templates look as the contributor expected them to. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 04:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
My patrolling not in logs
I patrol lots of pages and now it doesnt show up in my logs. AlioTheFool (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a "Show patrol log" link that you have to click before it'll show up. See here for how it looks after you click it. I don't know when that got put in, but that's probably why you weren't seeing them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- thank you. yeah it used to show it to me without having to click a special thing Alio The 'Fool 16:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I posted this at WP:RfA and WP:CSD, where I saw it has having the most relevance. At WP:CSD, they suggested that I share it with the NPP crowd as well. I'm looking for thoughts/feedback on my most recent essay. If you are a NPP/CSD'er and thinking of running for Admin down the road, I particularly encourage you to read it!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
A true CSD survey
Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:
1. Agree with criteria for deletion.
2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria.
3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies.
4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.
To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've posted the results for the CSD survey---Balloonman PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 02:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Enforcement of Speedy Deletion Template Removal via Bot
I have recently filed a BRFA as well as opened a thread on the village pump concerning enforcement of the speedy deletion template via a bot. Any comments or concerns about such bot would be appreciated at either page. —Nn123645 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Cautious approach
I've added a paragraph near the top [3] about being respectful of inuse and underconstruction notices, largely in response to this ANI thread. Kim Bruning has already pointed out that NPP's should be working from the back of the log anyway, but I think it may be a good idea to formalize the approach of not moving too soon.
I'm not happy about my wording which appears to give special privilege to established editors, but after all they do generally know what they're about and will generally deliver correct results when they're done.
Comments welcome... Franamax (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may add that in German WP it is an unwritten law to first step in 15 minutes after the creator made his/her last edit, as long as the article is not a blatant policy violation. This should give the creator time to build the article, if s/he wishes to save in between paragraphs. This also should give the NPP enough time to do a little research themselves. Counter examples are this diff as well as the above mentioned case, where the article currently seems to survive the AfD per WP:SNOW (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles). --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I stole the idea for 15 minutes from HexaChord :) Franamax (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Very sensible idea. I've always thought that there seems to be a desperate race on to tag things first, with all the pitfalls about doing it that way, like forgetting to actually mark a page as patrolled so that everyone else doesn't end up looking at it, and of course all the mistagging that goes on. --GedUK 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- People should be aware that Wikipedia is no first-person shooter, yes. There also is no capture the flag to be found here. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Another problem to be considered here is competence. This isn't trivial work. It actually requires an understanding of the various CSD criteria, especially A7. Possessing the ability to install Twinkle is not sufficient. If a new page patroller doesn't know what he's doing he can do far more damage here than anywhere else on Wikipedia. I think it's time we raise the bar for who gets to do this work. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, well, I'm pretty sure the competence issue is one that goes right across the wiki! --GedUK 08:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I came here from the thread at WP:AN/I, & I have to agree that the presence of {{inuse}} or the like ought to alert patrollers to wait a while before tagging an article for deletion. Give the editor the benefit of the doubt, for petessake -- it'll help make Wikipedia a more hospitable place to work in! -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- And in the very few situations where I've come across unsuitable new articles on my journeys, I've usually tried to persuade new editors to move the article into their uspace for further work and even move it for them. I think I have a 100% success rate on the persuasion and approx. 100% failure on it ever becoming a mainspace article (i.e. they give up) - but it still just feels like a nicer way to do things. Of course it takes time, attention and discussion; I don't do regular NPP; and I wouldn't want to dump on the valuable work that our NPPers do - but unless it's "my firend Paul and me have this new band" or "Apollo 13 never landed on the moon", if the article is being actively edited it doesn't immediately need a CSD (or AFD or prod) tag. However this does not fit with the NPpatrol model, which is to work from the current log.
- What would be ideal would be a separate NPWatchlist so that a NPPer could mark the new article as "watching" then check up on it 1-2 days later. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
For db-copyvio, db-attack, and db-spam (in cases where the community believes the article to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise a non-notable person or product), you need competent taggers and admins working together to delete these articles immediately. Pages get copied to mirror sites and indexed by search sites very quickly, sometimes within 10 minutes, and once they're on the web, they're there forever. With db-copyvio and db-attack, the issue is that we're subject to the same copyright and defamation laws that everyone else is; with db-spam, the issue is that we only encourage spammers if we hold off for 10 minutes before deleting, because much of the damage is already done by that time. For every other category of speedy deletion, I completely agree with the above sentiments ... and I'd like to point out that there's a standard WP:WARN template in these cases, {{hasty}}
, which says basically "I agree with the tagger, but give them 1 hour from the time of creation". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's certainly true, and it's clear that admins who deal with CSDs target these reports as the priority, which is as it should be. It's just trying to get teh balance right on the other ones so that they are tagged correctlty and at the right time, so that no-one's (admin, the author and the NPPer) time is wasted. --GedUK 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, but with a note that some editors may use the technique of copy-pasting in a copyvio to start an article, then progressively rewrite the whole thing into an original presentation. In that case, it's the end result that matters, so a 15-minute wait is still reasonable if it looks like the editor is making an effort. Of course, an obvious attack page should be tagged immediately, no matter how much effort the author is making to pretty it up. Franamax (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a big problem if the copyvio stuff is rewritten, because then the copyvio will be replaced on the mirror and archiving sites. The problem comes if the article is deleted rather than improved, which happens in my experience 90% of the time. Then the archived version is the only version that ever exists, and then we're violating both the rule of DMCA (we're not taking down copyright violations as soon as we see them), and the spirit of DMCA (because we're knowingly preserving the copyright violations, by waiting until they get archived before we delete). My understanding is that the WMF lawyer, Mike Godwin, is aware of the language at WP:CV. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, IANAL but I think that if we can show ourselves to be diligent in our efforts, we're clean. 15 minutes is pretty darn prudent and is far far better than most other websites, also if the author is actively working on remedying the situation, again we can show dilgent efforts. To me, a gentle note that starting off with a copyvio is not a good plan in future would be the best route. You're likely right in your estimated percentage though - most copyvios are just put there and left by new editors who just don't understand what copyright is and have no idea that if they spend many hours decipehering wiki-ese they'll discover it's against the rules.
- And again NAL, but I think DMCA applies to WMF itself (in the letter of the law) and acting promptly upon receiving notification - and "as soon as" would be at least a day (and "immediately" for lawyers means anything from three days to three months :( ) As to the spirit of the act, it's not our problem how other sites do their mirroring. If they use an RSS feed, they get the article the second it's created. All that said, yes, we do aggressively patrol for copyvios and we don't compromise on them. It comes down to a judgement call though - if it's clear that the editor is already working on solving the problem, there's no need to jump on them with a tag. Hence my suggestion that 15 minutes is reasonable discretion. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Versageek had what sounds like an excellent suggestion ... edit out the copyvio part immediately, but leave them a nice message and give them some time to get their act together before deleting the article (unless there's some other reason to speedy; many db-copyvios could be and are deleted as db-spam). Is that acceptable? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty reasonable. The text is stll available in the history for the author to reference (which is not copyvio as far as I know, since it's not on public display) and at the same time it won't get propagated. Franamax (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Versageek had what sounds like an excellent suggestion ... edit out the copyvio part immediately, but leave them a nice message and give them some time to get their act together before deleting the article (unless there's some other reason to speedy; many db-copyvios could be and are deleted as db-spam). Is that acceptable? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a big problem if the copyvio stuff is rewritten, because then the copyvio will be replaced on the mirror and archiving sites. The problem comes if the article is deleted rather than improved, which happens in my experience 90% of the time. Then the archived version is the only version that ever exists, and then we're violating both the rule of DMCA (we're not taking down copyright violations as soon as we see them), and the spirit of DMCA (because we're knowingly preserving the copyright violations, by waiting until they get archived before we delete). My understanding is that the WMF lawyer, Mike Godwin, is aware of the language at WP:CV. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Patrolling Issue
Greetings, When i check the log, and select a page not highlighted, i dont see the Mark this page as patrolled link? Any help would be appreciated :) --English836 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the page is not highlighted, it has already been patrolled unless maybe you created the page yourself?(15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)). Each page only needs to be patrolled once. You can still edit the page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, unless you are an admin, you can't mark pages that you have created. This is so that your new page gets seen by a fresh pair of eyes - sometimes it is hard to criticise your own work objectively. In your case (and I'm saying this in an entirely collaborative spirit) this means that someone like me gets to point out that your citation in Ghent (NYCRR station) doesn't actually support the statement, and your Craryville (NYCRR station) and Martindale (NYCRR station) articles are entirely unreferenced. Of course, I don't really suppose that you're some Walter Mitty type busily inventing fantasy rail services, but if your articles don't cite reliable sources it's hard for readers to know whether to trust them. So it would be great if you could polish up the new pages you created today. Thanks! - Pointillist (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I forgot to say—some editors don't know how to do references (or think they can just create new pages but leave someone else to establish notability/verifiability!)—so if I can help you improve your NYCRR station articles, please let me know. - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay cool, I have a few book references that cover like 3-4 of the articles, but just need a few for the remaining 4--English836 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying and good luck. You might find that the same reference works for a lot of the articles. For example, you talk about cessation of NYCRR passenger services in 1972 in several articles, so once you have a reference for it you can just paste it in everywhere (including the main New York Central Railroad article which doesn't mention the year 1972 yet). - Pointillist (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can check whether a page has been patrolled by going to Special:Logs, typing the name of the page in the righthand box and clicking "go". Patrolled pages have a log entry stating that a user has patrolled them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying and good luck. You might find that the same reference works for a lot of the articles. For example, you talk about cessation of NYCRR passenger services in 1972 in several articles, so once you have a reference for it you can just paste it in everywhere (including the main New York Central Railroad article which doesn't mention the year 1972 yet). - Pointillist (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay cool, I have a few book references that cover like 3-4 of the articles, but just need a few for the remaining 4--English836 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Competition!
I'm proposing a competition as follows, perhaps first of a series; others may edit it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The task
Each team will try to create the longest possible stretch free of unpatrolled articles starting from the earlier end of their stretch (bottom of the list) and working forwards. The time periods contained 500 unpatrolled articles each when I checked a few minutes ago. (as of 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)))
- Team A: between March 6 00:00 and March 7 16:43 2009 (UTC) Patrol from the bottom of this list, which starts from March 6 00:00 at the bottom.
- Team B: between March 9 00:00 and March 10 04:36 2009 (UTC). Patrol from the bottom of this list, which starts from March 9 00:00 at the bottom.
Rules
- Canvassing is allowed for this competition! Get all your friends to come and help with new page patrol. However, avoid posting messages where they're likely to be unwelcome.
- Competition begins as soon as at least one person has signed up for each team. Others may join throughout the competition.
The team members
Sign yourself up! Participants pledge to put quality of patrolling and the good of the project ahead of winning the competition, and to also spend some time during the competition patrolling from the very back end of the unpatrolled log.
Team A
Team B
Progress
Team A
Team B
How to determine the winning team
The competition ends when either all the articles in one stretch are patrolled, or one of the stretches reaches the back end of the log (around April 5). The winning team is the first one to finish their stretch, or, if neither did, then the one with a consecutive stretch free of unpatrolled articles beginning from the earlier end of their stretch and covering a larger proportion of the time period than the other team's.
However, the other team can then argue that the reason they didn't patrol as many articles is that the quality of their patrolling was better or that they spent more time patrolling the back end; the first team can retort that if the other team had spent more time patrolling than arguing over who was better, they might have had a chance of winning; the other team can edit the rules to define them as winning, and everybody can end up with that warm fuzzy feeling that consensus is on their side and that we're all working together to build the best encyclopedia in the world.
Discussion
Competitions are evil
Userbox: change of attitude please
Patrollers are invited to use this template on their userpage:
The patroller is raising his/her hand saying STOP HERE. I would prefer to have a patroller starting with both hands on his/her back. Saying STOP from start is not civil, not wiki, and also biting the newbies. Also it precludes helping. Request change of image. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- A picture of a customs officer would appropriately illustrate the NPP, maybe an armed US border patroller. Fences&Windows 22:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I like Fences idea. Ikip (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Already-deleted pages are not patrolled!?
Poking around at the back of the pagepatrol log, I noted that a good deal of the pages that have not been patrolled simply don't exist anymore. I am assuming this is a bug, in which case it should be fixed so that deleted pages don't show up in the newpages log anymore. ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Backlog clearing effort
On IRC we are working to clear the newpage backlog, any help would be appreciated.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
CSD checking bot
After some discussion on the RFA talk page concerning the difficulty in getting feedback about the accuracy of CSD work, an idea was proposed to have a bot check the outcomes of people's speedies, and notifying editors if they have CSD tags denied or if the page they tagged was deleted under a different criteria than the one they tagged it for. I am currently working out the implementation for such a bot on the the bot requests page and would appreciate feedback from frequent CSDers. One of the key things that needs working out is if people would find it objectionable if the bot worked on an opt-out system, giving notifications to everyone who does not opt out, or if it should only notify people who explicitly opt in. I would appreciate any feedback anyone has, but please leave it on the bot request page so I can keep it all in one place.--Dycedarg ж 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Expansion of A7 for "individual animals"
CSD A7 has been expanded to cover individual animals. Please note that this is intended to cover articles on pets and the like and is not for any sort of class of animals, such as a species.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion I made re: welcoming new users.
I made a suggestion over at Wikipedia_talk:Friendly#Feature_request:_TAG_page_-_Automatic_welcome and if anyone that happens to patroll pages often thinks the idea is good/bad/OK/ or has any other comments (or happens to know how to do the two in one scenario of tagging/welcoming) the feel free to let me know. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Userfication
Wikipedia:Userfication is not mentioned on the main page, nor is it mentioned on this talk page (update: see below), is it something that has been considered a nicer alternative to speedy delete or taking something to WP:AFD.
Have any editors here made a practice of moving articles to user subspace, instead of tagging them for deletion? Ikip (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would love to do this for articles that are appropriate for userification. Would it be possible (I know I like to make things really easy for me but...) if it can be all done with a click of a button? I.e. click on friendly, click on "userify", page automatically moved to user sub page + note/welcome message given on their talk page. It would be a nice alternative to doing CSD all the time for articles that might have potential.Calaka (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, what a great idea! I will talk to the friendly folks. :) and add link here. Ikip (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
New Page Patrollers, are they mindreaders?
Take a look at a new essay that may be useful in explaining to editors who are displeased with their article is tagged for speedy deletion, prod'd or AFD'd protesting that it was just created and they had intentions of adding more detail with exemplary citations to reliable sources.
Additions, modifications, etc. are welcome to the essay as always.
--RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Already added to two help pages, planning to add to some more, and made some suggestions. Thanks for the wonderful essay! Ikip (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent essay RadioFan.Calaka (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions or help solicited
There's a new way to start articles. Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0. The good news is that many new editors are using it. Over 400 articles are in Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard. The bad news is that a lot of new editors are using it, and following the advice to go to WP:FEED for feedback. The small number of people that watch that page are overwhelmed.
The solution may be something like NPP - maybe even editors who signed up for NPP would like to add WP:FEED (hint, hint) to their watchlist, and pitch in.
If the editors who are part of NPP don't see providing feedback as a good fit, perhaps you can offer some advice on how to create a FeedPatrol, with a sexy template and everything.--SPhilbrickT 22:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Highlighted articles
How do you get the article to be un-highlighted when they have been checked on the Special:NewPages page?--Pianoplonkers (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you click on the article on Special:NewPages, you will notice a link at the bottom right of the article page: "Mark this page as patrolled". If you click on that, the article will be marked as patrolled and no longer highlighted. If you edit the article, you must remember to go back to the original display; otherwise you will not see the link. --Boson (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Colours?
Why are some articles highlighted yellow? Could this be explained on the project page? Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- There's a banner at the very top of the project page that states "Wondering why Special:Newpages has highlighting? See here for full details about this cool software feature." Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 23:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
New Pages from User:Justaway213
Apologies if this is not the right place for this. The user has created several new pages with partial japanese text. I don't want to bite the newcomer but how best approach this? They may be useful just not in EN wiki! •xytram• tkctgy 12:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would have thought a nice simple message on their talk page would do the job, not yet another template that doesn't explain the particulars of this circumstance. No need to overcompliacte things! GedUK 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)