Rent A Troop (talk | contribs) →It doesn't work: new section |
→It doesn't work: hidden for now |
||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
In the Patrolling new pages in the subsection [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Improving new pages|Improving new pages]] in the part for ''Foreign language articles''. There is a link provided for a page to analyze text to determine what language it is. When you click the link it takes you to a page that says "It works!", nothing more. --[[User:Rent A Troop|Rent A Troop]] ([[User talk:Rent A Troop|talk]]) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
In the Patrolling new pages in the subsection [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Improving new pages|Improving new pages]] in the part for ''Foreign language articles''. There is a link provided for a page to analyze text to determine what language it is. When you click the link it takes you to a page that says "It works!", nothing more. --[[User:Rent A Troop|Rent A Troop]] ([[User talk:Rent A Troop|talk]]) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I've hidden the link for now. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, but I certainly can't get anything from it! [[User:Ged UK|<font color="green">Ged</font>]][[User talk:Ged UK|<font color="orange">'''''UK'''''</font> ]] 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:53, 8 February 2010
This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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
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)
- Nothing with guns please, there are parts of the world where that would be somewhat contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like Fences idea. Ikip (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/1991_benthos-achtern02_hg.jpg/220px-1991_benthos-achtern02_hg.jpg)
- I wasn't serious. Fences&Windows 00:59, 25 November 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)
Can't patrol a page due to move
Paul W. Clayborn was moved to User:Paulclayborn. How do we get this out of the new pages list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted pages showing up on unpatrolled list
When viewing the list of unpatrolled pages, there are usually a few pages listed that have already been deleted. The last three on the list right now (Mandee Rene, Lg versa, and ST. PETER'S school kodaikanal) have been deleted but are still marked unpatrolled. Is there any way for a non-admin to mark these articles as patrolled, or is there another way to remove them from the list? Bobby Tables (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Adding &action=markpatrolled to the URL will mark the page as patrolled. I've tested it and it works for deleted pages as well. Reach Out to the Truth 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Marking a page as patrolled
The instructions say to mark any “page with a tag explaining that it needs major improvement” as patrolled. However, I tagged a new page as needing improvement, and the “mark as patrolled” link disappeared. I then checked the “patrol log” and did not see the page was marked as patrolled. Why did the link to “mark as patrolled” disappear if the page was not automatically marked as patrolled by virtue of me tagging it and the patrol log shows no indication that somebody else marked it as “patrolled”? Bwrs (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The "Mark page as patrolled" link only shows up if you open the page from the New Pages list. I usually mark the page patrolled before I tag it for cleanup. Bobby Tables (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you go back to Special:Newpages and open it again, it will give you a new "Mark page as patrolled" link for the updated page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- The page you return to after editing lacks the rcid. Clicking the back button twice should bring you back to the page that has the [Mark this page as patrolled] link. Reach Out to the Truth 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Help with related patrolling: Category:Unreviewed new articles
As some of you may be aware, many new articles are being created via the relatively new article wizard. A percentage of these articles are created as userspace drafts and only later moved to the mainspace and thus bypass listing at newpages. But many of these articles will be in Category:Unreviewed new articles, placed by the tag, {{New unreviewed article}}. Though the wizard will hopefully cause a better percentage of these article to not meet any CSD than article created without it, these are "new pages" and need all the same review as those at special:newpages. So if some of you would keep in mind to check that category and patrol there as well, that would be great.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Lightening the load
Just a reminder in case anyone wasn't aware of this. If you see someone doing lots of consistently patrollable quality articles and they seem to have a fair grasp of BLP and notability its worth nominating them for Autoreviewer status so that all their future articles are pre patrolled. OK that means an even higher proportion of what appears at Special:NewPages will be crud, but the total workload will drop. ϢereSpielChequers 17:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Make patrol-on-edit default for experienced users
The "Mark page patrolled" link should be replaced with: "[checkbox] Mark page patrolled on edit" and "Mark now" with the check-box pre-filled for experienced editors.
Optionally, make the check-box setting a user preference.
This would make NPP a lot easier since most edits by experienced users would auto-mark the pages as patrolled, in much the same way that editors with the autoreviewer have new articles automatically marked patrolled.
Having a check-box gives editors a chance to say "no, wait, I want to edit this but not mark it patrolled." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree with having "the check-box pre-filled for experienced editors". "Patrolled" means the editor takes some responsibility for the quality of the article, but in your scenario they might have just dropped by to correct a link in "See also" or "External links" – they haven't even glanced at the body of the article. It's completely different from trusting some editors to create satisfactory articles. We let experienced soldiers decide when to pull out the pin from their grenades, but that doesn't mean the system should pull the pin out for them without warning, does it? - Pointillist (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)0
User preference: Always show patrolled status
If I run across a page during non-NPP work, I still want to see if it's been patrolled, and if not, mark it. Does anyone else think this is worth asking for at the technical village pump? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree in principle. When it comes to a discussion I'd like to fold in the related question whether "patrolled" should mean "safe for Google to index". - Pointillist (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I like this idea alot. I'm not sure if it's technically feasible, and I assume it would have to be an 'opt in' function, but if the kinks could be worked out I think this could be a great enhancement to new page patrolling. I hate seeing articles fall off the back-end of the list without being patrolled - the idea that these "lost" new pages could be marked as patrolled down the road is enticing. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 01:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Safe for Google index? If by that you mean factually correct and not full of opinion and not one-sided, unfortunately significant parts of the project would fail in that regard, including pretty much by definition most articles that are fully protected due to edit disputes. If you mean no COPYVIO, BLP issues, or unnecessary-for-the-article NSFW content, yeah, that's a realistic goal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just think the community here (and the grown ups) should decide what 'safe for Google index' should mean, and how an article gains or even loses that status. NPP is just a part of the picture, though an important part, given the growing size of en.wikipedia and the apparent ceiling in the number of people interested in maintenance. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like an automated way to jump 1 day in, 15 days in, and RANDOM time into the list
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Right now, there are quick-links for us to start patrolling the newest pages and a quick link to patrol the list from 30 days out in reverse order.
I would like a quick-link to jump in after 24 hours, by which time articles should have some work done already, halfway into the list, and a random time period into the list. The last two links will reduce the amount of junk that sticks around a whole month.
Yes, I know I can do this manually, I'm lazy, I want an easy way to do it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Err, I hate when people answer my questions with links but this is pretty much a perfect answer for question number 3. Special:Random/Special:NewPages returns a random, un patrolled page. Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Odd, I don't have the option to mark those pages patrolled when I use this link. Either I got very lucky and had several already-patrolled pages shown to me or this link won't work for the purpose I want. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Solved for now. I added a template to WP:NPP that does the job. Eventually this or something like it should be moved to Special:NewPages but for now this will do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the timing options (but for random) to MediaWiki:Newpages-summary. See this diff.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update: The functionality of {{Newpagesbox}} has been added to MediaWiki:Newpages-summary which is used by Special:Newpages, so I pulled it from WP:New page patrol as redundant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Patroll Bot
Hey there, I made a proposal for a bot that hits 'patrol' when a page is marked for CSD or PROD but is not officially patrolled. See the full discussion here. Tim1357 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I made a similar proposal last year (it's here in the archives). I've replied at the pump. GedUK 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Userspace Pages
Just created a userbox here at 05:03 today (god, I need to sleep) and went to the new pages list to patrol it so someone else didn't have to, but it's not showing up. Are all pages created in userspace exempt from New Page Patrol, or is there some sort of lag that's preventing it from showing up? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 05:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- You can't patrol pages you've created (far too easy for vandals who know the system then!). Not sure about the userpages, I'll see if I can find it in the NP log. GedUK 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see your article/userbox in the NP log, so I guess that userspace pages don't show. GedUK 10:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Just curious because surely a vandal who knew the system could create an attack page which Recent Changes Patrollers may not catch. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- There will always be ways to reduce your chance of getting caught. We do what we can to revert vandalism but we can't catch everything. I would give you some ideas but then I would have to do something I shouldn't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to e-mail ideas to me so I use them for the 2011 Wikipedia riots. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- How will this be any different from the ongoing riots? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because it will... be... you know what? Point taken. XD! I've only been there a week and I'm already starting to dislike it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- How will this be any different from the ongoing riots? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to e-mail ideas to me so I use them for the 2011 Wikipedia riots. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- There will always be ways to reduce your chance of getting caught. We do what we can to revert vandalism but we can't catch everything. I would give you some ideas but then I would have to do something I shouldn't. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Just curious because surely a vandal who knew the system could create an attack page which Recent Changes Patrollers may not catch. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 12:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Userspace is by no means exempt from newpage patrol, but most NPP is done with the filter defaulting to article space. I've just marked your userbox as patrolled [1] ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you! --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see your article/userbox in the NP log, so I guess that userspace pages don't show. GedUK 10:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
discussion on user rights that would impact NPP
See: Wikipedia talk:User access levels#Be autoconfirmed to create a page? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
When template-bombing new articles...
I think that new page patrollers need to be reminded that they are expected to give at least a meaningful edit summary, and typically to start a section on the discussion page of an article whenever they add a maintenance template to it. I see a lot of templates being added with nothing more than an automatic edit summary of the following kind, without any followup message on the talk page or even attempt to notify the creator of the article:
- Added {{article issues}} with parameters cleanup, context and essay-like {{expert}} tag to article. using Friendly
This is not acceptable. For templates that imply a very subjective assessment (such as {{essay-like}}), the need for giving an explanation of why the tag was added is especially true. Some templates (the {{expert}} tag being one of them) a talk-page message is mandatory, since otherwise no one but the placer of the template will have any clue what it is about. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Could you give a few examples. My recollection is that when I have seen tags like "Essay-like" on a new article (particularly when combined with other tags) it has usually been abundantly obvious from the article why the tag was added: articles full of expressions like "should", "despite", "the most important . . .", etc. and obviously looking like an essay or seminar notes (and usually without references). Such things may not be obvious to a new editor, but it might then be better to discuss possibilities for improvement on the user's talk page, following the Welcome template. It may, of course, be that you are generally looking at different types of articles. It is my impression, though, that such tags may be somewhat persistent: the most egregious instances of non-encyclopedic writing are improved but nobody feels justified in removing the tag. --Boson (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of maintenance templates and would like to see many of them rephrased to be less obtrusive, or even replace them with categories. But I think some are sufficiently clear that they don't need a talkpage note or a note to the author. For example, I still regard somebody categorising one of my first articles as part of my welcome to Wikipedia. It was probably months after that before I started using categories, but nowadays I have installed wp:hotcat, a lot of my edits are categorisation, and I'm one of those editors who keeps Category:Uncategorized pages under control. So whilst I would prefer that someone tagging a page with {{uncategorised}} actually categorised it instead, and I would much rather have uncategorised as a category than a template, I don't see a need for it to be accompanied with messages on talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there certain templates whose placement is somewhat obvious. However, the {{expert}} tag clearly requires more than just an automated message, and its documentation mandates a thread on the talk page. Moreover, in the bulk of my own experience as an almost exclusively mathematics-related editor, new page patrollers have not generally shown good judgment in the application of maintenance templates. One example is orbital integral: [2]. None of the tags added here were remotely obvious to anyone else, and essay-like is a farcical stretch of the imagination. (Currently the topic of a discussion at WT:WPM, as well as the patroller's talk page.) User:Michael Hardy has more examples, and both of us have seen this sort of cavalier templating more often than we would like. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Be careful with this. I do new-page patrol and many of the cleanup templates are so obvious that a note on the article talk page would be redundant. When it comes to edit summaries I may do something as simple as "+{{notability|bio}}" or I may give a detailed line, depending whether I think it's necessary. One place I probably could do better is putting a note on the author's talk page welcoming him and explaining the cleanup templates. Also, if an editor were "required" or "heavily recommended" to use detailed edit summaries and article talk page explainations, he might use his wiki-time elsewhere, leaving articles un-patrolled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Grammar fixed davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
- Looking at the example, I think I see where you are coming from, Sławomir Biały, but I don't know if a comment on the talk page would help much. To me, it seems fairly obvious why the tag was placed; it seems almost as obvious, to me, why some mathemeticians might object to the tagging. I think it has more to do with different people's understanding of how accessible mathematical articles can and should be made to the general reader with little knowledge of mathematics and mathemeticians conventions. In other words, I think the debate should perhaps be about whether (or with what reservations) new page patrollers should add certain tags to articles on subjects which they know little about. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- +1. However requiring a more detailed assessment or reasoning for the tag, forces people to tag only things, they have some knowledge about and blocks the temptation of quick, superficial mass taggings, which can become a quality issue on their own. Falsely or needlessly tagged articles are not really helping anybody, they just causes quarrels, cause additional work and bind resources and distract people from really important issues. The current discussion might even serve as an example or proof for those effects.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be a mistake to restrict taggers to "tag only things, they have some knowledge about". Tags like {{unreferencedBLP}} and {{wikify}} don't require you to understand the article, if you did you might be able to fix it yourself. Far better would be to encourage people to fix a few articles rather than tagging a larger number. ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- ok let me put it this way: When they tag something, they should understand enough to know which tag is appropriate. Requiring a short reason for the tag aside from the very obvious cases in not in contradiction to your examples. Using {{wikify}} for an article not having any wikilinks at all is pretty obvious. However simply using the tag because the wikilinks in the article seems to be "below average" or not enough for the editor's taste being unfamiliar with the content and not knowing which terms could or should be linked is a bad thing. Similarly using {{{unreferencedBLP}} for an article without sources is obvious, but using is for well sourced article that just happened to use not enough footnotes for the editor's taste is a bad idea as well. In those "bad" cases, you essentially turn mere differences in writing style into alleged quality problems, which will result in unnecessary quarrels and a waste of resources.
- I agree that encouraging people to fix/improve an articles directly is always preferable to tagging. Generally speaking the guidelines should make editors aware that large numbers of "bad" tags do create a problem of their own and hence some moderation and due diligence is desirable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging a referenced BLP as unreferenced sounds like troutworthy behaviour. Absolutely people should only use the correct tag. ϢereSpielChequers 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be a mistake to restrict taggers to "tag only things, they have some knowledge about". Tags like {{unreferencedBLP}} and {{wikify}} don't require you to understand the article, if you did you might be able to fix it yourself. Far better would be to encourage people to fix a few articles rather than tagging a larger number. ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- +1. However requiring a more detailed assessment or reasoning for the tag, forces people to tag only things, they have some knowledge about and blocks the temptation of quick, superficial mass taggings, which can become a quality issue on their own. Falsely or needlessly tagged articles are not really helping anybody, they just causes quarrels, cause additional work and bind resources and distract people from really important issues. The current discussion might even serve as an example or proof for those effects.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps Sławomir Biały would consider asking the folks that maintain Friendly and Twinkle to figure out which common tags require talk page messages (e.g., {{globalize}}, which I have seen misused to complain that "____ in [Name of Single Country Here]" is focused on the named subject instead of "____ in the entire world"), and prompt editors to leave the necessary talk page messages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the very thoughtful replies. I believe that there is some consensus on the need to emphasize the following:
- Make sure to tag only articles that need it. For example, tagging an article as {{unreferenced}} simply because footnotes are not used (e.g., if Harvard citations are employed instead) is inappropriate—I see this happen a lot, actually, and not just from new page patrollers.
- Be aware that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia allow for considerable differences in style: writing style, citation style, and so forth. Do not use automated tools to tag an article simply because it has a different "style" than the one to which you are accustomed. Exercise due diligence in the application of templates to an article.
- Only use automatic edit summaries when applying tags that are especially obvious. For instance, tagging an article that consists only of straight text {{wikify}} does not require any further explanation (the tag is self-explanatory). Tagging an article with gross errors in spelling, grammar, and so forth with {{cleanup}} is fairly self-explanatory, although a more specific template like {{copyediting}} might be a good idea instead. However, tagging an article with {{cleanup}} simply because it is written in an unfamiliar style or on a highly technical subject with which one is unfamiliar is not appropriate without further clarification on the talk page.
- In some cases, a descriptive edit summary and/or explanation on the talk page is mandatory. The {{expert}} tag absolutely mandates more than an automated edit summary. {{Globalize}} seems to be one of those very subjective templates that would require an explanation on the talk page, as should {{NPOV}}.
- Due diligence is the key. Obviously there are going to be a lot of exceptions to any kind of attempt to mandate talk-page messages, but I think the project seems to endorse a de facto standard of drive-by tagging.
--Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- +1 In addition I'd like to add that the use of the {{unreferenced}} is not only unappropriate in the footnotes versus Harvard style scenario, but for some cases with a lack of inline citations as well. Short articles only using a few specific sources often have no need for any inline citations at all. In such cases it is good enough to simply list the sources under references.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, tagging an article as "unreferenced" because it uses general refs, embedded citations, or parenthetical refs (etc.) makes both Wikipedia and the individual editor placing the tag look stupid. Alternatives like {{No footnotes}} or {{Refimprove}} might be useful, but "There are no sources named here... well, if you ignore the sources you listed on the page..." is unfortunate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed - unfortunately it happens. And even for the other 2 tags you can have a similar problems. This mostly due to some editors adding tags quickly without actually fully reading/checking content and its sources and often do so bot supported. For obvious cases that usually doesn't cause a problem, but in the less obvious cases it occasionally or even often simply creates stupid tagging. For instance the case triggering this whole discussion was an editor being unable or unwilling to distinguish between "we" as manner of speech (as often used in science literature in particular) and "we" as expressing a personal point of view and insisted on the latter though it was obviously not the case. Similarly if you have a short article relying on very few (short) sources listed at the end under references, there is usually no need for explicit citations/footnotes, which is kinda clear to everybody taking the time to read the article and the references. However somebody just judging at first glance without actually looking at the sources might (falsely) argue none of the stated facts are really sourced because they have no footnote and we end up with a stupid tagging again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, tagging an article as "unreferenced" because it uses general refs, embedded citations, or parenthetical refs (etc.) makes both Wikipedia and the individual editor placing the tag look stupid. Alternatives like {{No footnotes}} or {{Refimprove}} might be useful, but "There are no sources named here... well, if you ignore the sources you listed on the page..." is unfortunate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
New tool for NPP
<spam>Kissle is in testing right now. Contact me on my talk page if you want to try it out. </spam>Tim Song (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Bot to patrol pages that have been tagged for deletion.
Hey NPPers, I made a bot that marks pages as patrolled if they have a CSD, a PROD, or a AFD template. (The conversation here was what I took as consensus.) If you want to check out some of the finer details or give your two cents, go to the bot's approval page here. Thanks! Tim1357 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a new trick?
The authors of GreenDogg seem to have found a way around NPP.
- Create not-too-bad looking advert
- use a SPA to mark the page as patrolled
Or have I assumed bad faith? Josh Parris 06:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- (1)It wasn't patrolled, though the "unreviewed article" tag has been taken off, the patrol log says that it has not been patrolled after the first deletion. (2) I don't think your guess is off the mark here; either that, or the "reviewing" account is really clueless - you shouldn't be reviewing stuff when you are not even autoconfirmed. (3) There are many ways to get around NPP - I won't mention them at the risk of getting beansy, but it is a problem. (4)I'd recommend a SPI here. Timotheus Canens (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Time delay before tagging?
I've got a proposal for a disambiguation tagging bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot. An issue has come up with how soon it should edit the article after creation. If NPPers have an opinion, feel free to express it. Josh Parris 08:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Backlog is now cleared
Mostly thanks to Ironholds and other NPPers out there. Good work! –MuZemike 03:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I thought the log was broken when clicking to patrol from the back gave me titles identical to those when patrolling from the front - that's terrific! Well done to those who took part. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced BLPs
What are NPPers doing about unsourced BLPs? As there's a war going on over these articles at the moment, it'd be good if the NPP could help avoid any more making it into the encyclopedia. I'm not proposing we delete them all on sight, but rather that instead of just tagging a BLP as unsourced and marking it patrolled, NPPers should actually add sources to new, notable unsourced BLPs. Thoughts? Fences&Windows 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- For reference, see discussions here and here. Older discussions exist, as well, but I don't know their locations offhand. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also see here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't work
In the Patrolling new pages in the subsection Improving new pages in the part for Foreign language articles. There is a link provided for a page to analyze text to determine what language it is. When you click the link it takes you to a page that says "It works!", nothing more. --Rent A Troop (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've hidden the link for now. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, but I certainly can't get anything from it! GedUK 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)