This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"Refresh list" seems to display from my browser cache
As a result, the first time I sign on, I get an up-to-date list, but as I go on, even the pages that are already deleted still appear on my screen every time I refresh the list. None of the pages I've reviewed are marked as such: it always displays what it did display the first time I went to that page on a particular shift. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
We might need to adjust the server-side cache for that data. I can't remember what it's set to currently. Kaldari (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't know if this will help, but in Firefox, if I do Ctrl-Shift-R or Shift reload, the list of articles do not update. Bgwhite (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Did one of Oliver's minions change something? The list is now refreshing/updating after I hit reload. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh; the image of Kaldari and Benny as my minions is an amusing one (next project? Frickin' sharks, with frickin' laser beams on their heads). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Retain preferences
Can the filter preferences be set so they stay for that logged in user until changed? Currently they appear to be session specific. ϢereSpielChequers09:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmn; I'll ask :). Might be good to have as a Special:Preferences setting (although oy, that page is getting clogged). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that they aren't is possibly a bug; they should be kept in a cookie. There will be no Special:Preferences for this.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The articles Luca Turilli, Margaret Gorman and Rosemary LaPlanche were deleted and then restored by an admin. Looks like for copyvio issues. Not sure if these should show up as needed to be patrolled as an admin did the deed.
Do you mean "why they should not be patrolled", for the second type? And agreed. This shouldn't be happening (re the first kind); they should have the same revisionIDs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
When the page first loads, you can change the radio button settings by clicking on the text itself ("Newest" or "Oldest") next to the UI widgets. That's a useful accessibility enhancement that allows people to not have to hit the tiny radio button quite so exactly.
Next, click on Filter list. The drop down menu appears—and it doesn't have the same accessibility functionality. If you click the text next to the radio buttons and check boxes, nothing happens.
Can the Filter list menu be changed to also be accessible?
Notes:
If it's too early for UI enhancement requests like this, please let me know; otherwise, I'll keep them coming.
I know this is all about the <label> tags, but I figured that y'all know that part as well. If you don't, let me know and I'll write up exactly what needs changing.
That's a really great idea! Maintaining UI consistency is important :). I'll stick it in Bugzilla if it isn't there already. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of different tags that are automatically added to articles when they're created, as seen at Special:Tags. It'd be great if there was some way to filter the new pages feed to select just those with a particular tag. In particular, the ones I think would be most useful are:
very short new article (filter 98)
large unwikified new article (filter 180)
new article with no mention of title (filters 96, 238)
It may indeed be a good idea - and in fact even a first step towards addressing the real issue of why NPP is largely dysfunctional; it might encourage patrollers to concentrate on tagging only in areas where they do know the guideleines/policies well, and to leave other aspects to to other patollers. A possible suggestion might also be that if the article creators were automatically notified that their recently created page has been tagged for some urgent attention (but not orphan, cats, or Wikifying, for example.) See the proposal at the VP here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The tags are on our to-do list; we're actually talking about adding an extra filter/colour for "stuff that may potentially have issues as per abusefilter tags". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the quietness!
Hey guys
Sorry for the delay; I'm just on my way home from Wikimania now :). I should land in London at about 9am BST Tuesday, and be home to Cardiff before the US west coast wakes up (albeit only just). Once that happens, I'm going to work through the discussion backlog and start forwarding things to the relevant staffers as fast as possible :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Pfft. Kudpung was working away during sessions. Instead of recovering from your hangover during the night, you could have worked. Typical lazy, worthless Welshman. -- signed B. Glyndŵr White Bgwhite (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If some spaces don't need to be reviewed, should they be showing up in the list at all? Or is the list correct, and the error is in the pages not showing the "Mark this page as reviewed" link? Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽01:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the questions :)
So, using Special:NewPages, there was a move-related bug; if I started an article in my userspace and then moved it to the mainspace, it would appear, in Special:NewPages feed, in the userspace (where nobody ever patrols). So one of our first priorities was to fix this bug, which we did, er. A bit too enthusiastically. The outcome was that any page moved at all would appear.
This appears to have been fixed; what you're seeing seems to be the artefact of another bug, that any page deleted-and-then-restored will appear. I've re-opened the same bug request noting this new issue, and hopefully it'll come out fixed; thanks for pointing it out :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh; that was fast! Benny, our awesome backend engineer, has submitted a fix for that bug. It should be in the next deployment :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to set an image near the contributors names? It may help to identify them more quickly, like our signatures. JackPotte (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why not, but it would be something that would have to wait until after the launch of Global Profile. There are some obvious problems with it (like the fact that there could be multiple authors by the time an article reaches your feed), but those can be worked out in design.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins having their articles show up to be patrolled
I maybe confusing myself, nothing new. I'm seeing articles that were created by admins showing up in NPP. I thought admins have autopatrolled status. Examples are Asplenium × wherryi, List of Grand Teton National Park related articles, Arnhem languages and Holy Rosary Cathedral (Semarang). The key with the articles is that all of them have been moved out of the admin's userspace and into mainspace. I would expect the majority of autopatrollers to create the article in userspace first. So, this issue is having the effect of making atupatrolled status worthless, that is if I'm understanding this right. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Grrrr, I see it was already mentioned above under "autoreview's pages showing up". It's too late and I'm making too many mistakes. I'm going to bed.
Ooh, this is weird. I'll talk to Benny. Note that it may be "there was a bug, we fixed the bug, but these pages were moved afterwards". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I thought this was supposed to show all pages, including those from autopatrolled, or at least provide a setting for whether to show them or not, as thee basic NPP does. This is about as key a feature as can be imagined, because at least as bad as worse than the damage uninformed editors do, is the damage that can be done by those who who are qualified to be treated as understanding the rules, but do not understand as much as they are supposed to. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You can choose whether you want to see reviewed and/or unreviewed pages. The issue was whether or not auto-patrolled pages should show up as reviewed or not (they should, imo). If you want to see everything, just click that you want to include both reviewed and unreviewed. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That is what I thought should happen. I agree they should show up there. Do they actually do so? And, btw, what's the code for using the experimental version of the actions toolbar? DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Erm. Yes, it does show all pages; Bgwhite's issue was that pages created by admins were not being automatically patrolled. And the experimental version - are you using monobook or vector? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just took the new New Pages Feed functionality for a spin. Thanks!
Sometimes when I scroll to the bottom of the feed, no new items load, and then again, sometimes new items *do* load. Is there a trick to it? Sumana Harihareswara14:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't replicate the issue exactly as I saw it yesterday. Right now, if I reset a filter or change the ordering (oldest vs. newest) then the feed reloads and I'm automatically placed at the bottom of the page/feed and the loading icon doesn't display. Then, if I scroll up and then down again, the loading icon displays and then more items load. That seems a bit awkward but one can live with it. Sumana Harihareswara14:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I've had the same problem. The last time I saw it was ~6 weeks ago, but I haven't been on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. The problem was very sporadic and I didn't see a rhyme or reason for it. It didn't work one day and it worked the next. BTW... when is the next code update going live, if it hasn't already in the past few weeks? Bgwhite (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Does the presence of an RfC tag now mean that it has moved to the "RfC stage"? It's not made entirely clear as to whether the conversation is now a full proposal or not. If it is, I would advise you to say so (and start a fresh discussion). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you interested in enhancing new-user retention/new-article retention? If so, perhaps you would like to take the initiative and do it for me - I do not claim ownership of the RfC. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I am, but I also think it would be very inappropriate of me to jump in and say "hey everyone, WMF here, this is now an official discussion that will lead to a proper outcome one way or another". It's a community discussion about a community solution - something I'm always happy to see - and me taking on the role of deciding if it is now Important Bizness would be wrong.
As the person who added the RfC tag I would have thought you would have made the decision; you did, after all, start the initial discussion, and noted when you started it that it was most definitely not a binding or formal thing but instead something that would lead to an RfC. If it has now led to an RfC I would suggest that you contact the people who had previously participated when it was not and tell them so, if you have not already :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Smarter tagging
Right now, some pages are showing up as "Orphan" and/or "No categories," and that's great… when it works.
But sometimes there's an article like Safaba. As of when I write this, it has ten categories, all of which are hidden—so it should show up as "No categories." Similarly, it has two incoming links, but both are from user pages, so it should show as "Orphan." Neither is the case.
Could these tags be made a little bit smarter so that they match the definitions of "Orphan" and "No categories"?
When I look at the metadata from the sidebar on Mazraeh-ye Farah Bakhsh, 225622 edits since 2003-09-21" and "00:13, 10 August 2012" overlap slightly. I'm guessing the flyout is fixed-width, and Carlossuarez46's high edit count is at fault. Chris857 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Some fix must have occurred, because the contrib info and the creation date are now on different lines for me ergo no overlap. Chris857 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Curation Toolbar and Feed page display: Suggestions & possible bugs
Suggestions
Deletions
List of CSD deletion criteria: Each one of the entries to include either a link to the respective criteria descriptions or a mouseover pop up to it. Twinkle already does something like this.
PROD: Rewording ' 'Why do you think this page should be deleted?' to 'Please enter a reason, and provide links to the relevant policies wherever possible' I suggest this, because otherwise, rationales will begin with 'I think that...' followed with subjective claims.
It's also very rarely used. If something is almost entirely or entirely a copyright issue and also new, it should be deleted as a copyvio, and usually is. If something is merely potentially iffy or definitely a bit iffy, we have close parapgrasing, copyrighted content and cut and paste templates. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Creations by users with (var) number of edits (such as for example in the case of Blofeld and others who mass produce stubs) where when a user has created several dozen new stubs in a row, it's too much to scroll through, and the page extension is too slow to load).
That sounds like it would be a heck of a lot of work; edit count is not stored, it's calculated on the fly. You'd have to work out the edit count of every user in the log to filter it, which would be a lot slower than current loading times. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Page display
I have been told that the grey bar at the bottom of the page should be showing some information. On MacOSX 10.6.8 this is blank in both Safari 5.1.7 (build 6534.57.2), and Firefox 13.0.1.
I realise that a major effort is required to reduce the endemic clutter we have on the Twinkle drop-down choices of templates, but one of the major concerns with PP is that many patrollers appear to be inexperienced, some are also on-native English speakers. We should do our best to help them.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
A few suggestions
Bugs:
BLPPROD reads "An article about a living person that has no reliable sources", actually, that tag can only be placed on new biographies if there are *NO* sources, the explanatory text should be corrected here, the full policy statement is "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography.", I provide that only for reference, I'm sure a friendly wording can be discovered
The tagging doesn't include a BLP flavor of "unreferenced". You'd think that would be redundant with BLPPROD, but see above -- even a twitter feed external link might count as "no references for this", but not qualify for BLPPROD because of the unusual community consensus that formed around that
Point :).
BLPPROD templates must be subst'd, this one isn't.
The issue of external links and non-RS sources was never resolved during the development and deployment of BLPPROD. The discussions are on-going and have not as yet, AFAIK, reached consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There was another, um, discussion on this last summer at Wikipedia:BLP-PROD. The wording was changed several times. It was finally "settled". There has to be no references whatsoever to issue a BLP-PROD. The closing admins are enforcing this stance at deletion time. Bgwhite (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Feature requests:
I've run into the 250 character limit a few times--maybe extend this?
Yeah, I was adding a few tags, and wanted to write a note suggesting which one was urgent (the sourcing/BLPPROD), and add a few pointers for additional resources for that. --j⚛e deckertalk19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have those with some maintenance templates, but not distinctly. As well as complexity there's also the issue of clutter; there are a thousand things which would improve on the software, but we can't have too many buttons and interfaces. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There are several database reports that are run by a bot under the control of MZMcBride. A report is run when a person was born in the last 110 years, with no death date and no Category:Living people. There are a few other ways in finding a possible living person with no Category:Living people. There are a few editors that go thru these reports weekly and correcting articles as necessary. Bgwhite (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I've used those reports, they're awesome They miss a modest number of living people who have no computer-readable indication that they're people, although one of the reports does find a number of 'em. If *this* intereface knows something is a BLP, it could make use of that info too (using BLP unsourced instead of unsourced, perhaps offering up a different set of templates), etc. In any case, I'm mostly "noodling", thinking about what sorts of changes/improvements I'd make to new bios that hit the curation bar, and how to make that process as great as it can be. Fun to think about. --j⚛e deckertalk21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Placing the BLP project tag on a new BLP talk page is an interesting suggestion (I do a lot of this when patrolling), but as you say, its implementation may require some complex software tweaks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Boy, I wish I had access to this gadget's source code. Anyway, I found out about the BLP PROD bug last night and I posted a link a few sections up to a diff showing the error. --Nathan2055talk - contribs15:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
When toolserver is actually running normally, which hasn't happened since July 2, a bot does add the WikiProject Biography banner to talk pages of BLP's. MZMcBride'sLaraBot runs daily just after 0 UTC. Articles are viewable via database output. It doesn't catch all of the BLP's, but around 90%. An occasional bot is manually run every once in awhile that adds the WP Biography banner to eligible pages. It was last run four weeks ago. This catches 99% of articles that are not bands. Bgwhite (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: To Okeyes, Brandon, everyone involved with this: I should have added: This is awesome. Bugs happen, but this feels like the start of a very significant improvement to our tools. Thank you all for your efforts. --j⚛e deckertalk19:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey j⚛e decker, we really appreciate your kind words of encouragement! On behalf of the development team that has been working on this feature for the past couple months, I'd like to thank you all for your thoughtful feedback, which is incredibly useful to us! Cheers ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The first one is directed to a non-existent page, but it is most likely the BLP PROD bug that has been reported several times. The second one is most likely an feature that isn't finished yet. --Nathan2055talk - contribs15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Lst night I deleted a G10 attack page and, checking to see that the attacker had been properly warned, was surprised to see this. That would be OK for most speedies, but attack pages are different, and we should not be offering an attacker kind words and time to improve his attack - AGF is not a suicide pact, as they say. I think that, for attack pages, the warning should be much more like {{uw-attack}}; in particular, it should make clear that it is a final warning, and that any repetition will result in a block. JohnCD (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. It's important that the message does not include the name of the attack page, because not infrequently the title is itself an attack (X, the gayest guy in Blankville and the like) and we don't want that left on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not displaying for me at all. I can hit the review button in NPF, but the page just comes up normally with no toolbar. I'm using Internet Explorer 8 on Windows XP Professional. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)15:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Got permission to download Firefox at work. Toolbar shows up fine. Still, problem not actually resolved in general because there ARE people who use I.E. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll do it when I have a chance, but I'm going to be away from that particular computer for a week. I'll be able to try it in IE again tomorrow on a different computer. But I'm not sure how much good a screenshot will do you anyway. All that happens is I hit "Review," the article comes up, and the toolbar doesn't. The page works fine, just as if I reached it normally, but there's no floaty toolbar anywhere. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)00:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I tried it (IE 8, different computer) and the bug happened there too. I do have Firefox as my primary browser on this computer, though, so it's not too much of a problem. I can open the console, but I have no idea how to operate it to get useful output. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Any news? These bugs are very serious but seem pretty easy to fix (I pushed a similar patch to WP:AFCH ten minutes after the bug was reported (and if I could figure out how to use git, I would do the same thing here)). --Nathan2055talk - contribs01:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay; should now be patched! AfD is definitely working; lemme know if RfD isn't. But, either way, the messages should be properly substed :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: Stub templates
It would be great if we could figure out a way to do stub templates in the Curation Toolbar. I can do them the old-fashioned way, but that's an addition I'd like to see. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah! I requested this kind of thing be implemented in Twinkle a while back, but they said it would be to confusing and hard to keep up with. I very much support this! --Nathan2055talk - contribs01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The best part is that I don't think you'd actually have to include the list in the toolbar, just a way to interface with the stub categories and call the appropriate template. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)14:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed; those don't currently save between pages, though :(. I've added a bugzilla thing of "if the button to make it go away is hit, it should save that it should go away", and we'll see how long that fix takes. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It started happening to me too. It wasn't for a while, but then I think I navigated to another article from a tab that I'd been reviewing in. I think as long as you close the tab/window that you opened to curate a page, you'll be claer. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The cat parameter would be a good suggestion; the others are kinda edge cases :S. I worry we'll end up having a billion different tags people have to wade through. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If I had to pick just one of the tags to add, I'd pick unreliable sources. I actually do use that often enough to make it worth it. I get your point on the others, although cite check would be nice too. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)21:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1) I do alot of BLP IMDb refimprove tags. So that one and unreliable would be the two I'd choose.
3) For certain tags, could there be a link in the tag's description? Some of the tags, such as wikify and orphan, are a little more complicated. Maybe a link to the template?
4) Either the references tag needs to be removed from the common category or the BLP references tag needs to be added to the common category. Those two tags should be found together. Bgwhite (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What I'm worried about is... if just the reference tag is found in the common category, people will use that tag instead of when the BLP references tag is called for. People will remember what tags are in the common category before the other categories. Bgwhite (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha! I can think of an easy solution; what if we add a checkbox so that, if you tick "unreferenced", you can say "it's about a BLP" and it'll post the blp-unreferenced tag? That way we get both functions without taking up as much space. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The Wikify changes are currently under discussion, but I'll drop a note with the more important templates to keep when we clear it up. Will this be using {{Multiple issues}}? On another note, I once had an article I translated tagged with{{More footnotes}}{{One source}}{{Primary sources}} and {{ref improve}}. While those all cover slightly different things, fixing one generally fixes all of them. Is there any way to write something into this that discourages or even disallows redundant tagging? RyanVesey04:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I ran into a copyvio so I just did the normal copyvio thing - blanked the page and put it in the copyvio queue per copyvio directions. Was that the right thing to do? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it's now been deleted, but no; the standard practise would be to add the "db-copyvio" template, if it's a new article, for example :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean by hand? I don't see the option on the Page Curation (whatever that means). In fact, the bar gets in the way and I have to move the page up and down and around to be able to click the tag section. Seems harder to do than the old way. What am I missing? (I finally used Twinkle to tag an article.) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? The tag section should be in-view. Can you send me a screenshot of the page before you move it around so I can see what is being obscured? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The wording for speedy deletion needs to have some strong warnings. Not sure what to add. Kudpung would be best to answer this. The most common "problem" with new editors is tagging speedy.
For Proposed Deletion (Living People)... The wording should be "An article about a living person that contains no sources in any form." WP:BLP-PROD states, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." Bold was used in the article. I see this alot. Editors think there has to be no reliable refs to use the tag.
Could the text box for the AfD and Prod be made as large as possible? I'd like to encourage more description and not less.
For an AfD, is it possible to add the deletion lists?Gene93k might get a life instead of having to add multiple lists to every AfD. Adding all the country/states maybe overwhelming, so atleast the topical ones.
This maybe to difficult to code, but... Anomie has AnomieBOT check new articles to see if an article has been deleted via AfD before. This catches people trying to recreate the article. I also run into articles that have been deleted via Prod before. You can't Prod an article that has already been Proded. Not everybody knows how to check the page logs for previous deletions via a Prod. Bgwhite (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
One related point re the deletion section - the "patrolled" icon goes green when it's been checked, which is nice. Would it be possible for the deletion tag to change colour when it's been nominated for CSD/PROD/AFD, and possibly - even more usefully - if it's been nominated for one of these in the past and turned down? In the first case you can see the tag, so it's not that critical to have the colour change, but in the second case it could be very useful for the "not CSD, but..." cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was patrolling pages and found an empty page. The author blanked it. The CSD panel did not have G7, of which is for if the author requests deletion. I would like that criterion to be listed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report23:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's also missing other CSD criteria, such as R1 and 2. In another thing, I would like automatic refreshing after a certain time (5 min?) ~~Ebe123~~ → report00:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmn; R1 and 2 should be appearing. I'll poke Benny. I would be very uncomfortable having it automatically refresh; it means people would come back to the feed and find no record of what they've reviewed, with everything moved around, without them interacting with it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The newpageFeed takes a long time to load and when it does, some articles have already been patrolled or tagged. The current js live feed extension refreshes every 4 seconds, which is perfect for admins who are on patrol who can very quickly summarily delete totally inappropriate new pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be added as an option in the users prefs. In the meantime, because NPF takes up to 60 seconds or more to load each refresh (we have to remember that not all patrollers are in the US or the USA), while it's loading I go back to using the simple live feed that updates itself every 4 seconds. Different users of NPF have different objectives: most primarily, selective patrolling. I think more community input is required on this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
On whether it auto-refreshes? An auto-refresh would be just as demanding on your machine and internet connection as a manual one - moreso, in fact, because it would be happening more often. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Good thing about the WikiMedia software is that it is open source. Code is located here. The bad news is that these new fancy whippersnappers won't write the code in COBOL and won't stay off my lawn. Bgwhite (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's because the oldest page in the queue is from June 2012. What are you expecting it to do that it doesn't, precisely? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of huge backlog, and someone mentioned they went back to 2004. So I guess I was hugely confused. (I find this new Curation bar hard to use. It takes a long time to load - a swirling javascript thing - and it doesn't have as many options. I guess I still haven't figured out how to use it flexibly.) I'll keep trying! But it's ok to use the old way instead? (I hope the old way remains an option, as I like to try to fix up articles, find references, etc. and this new Curation bar isn't geared to that.) MathewTownsend (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There were articles that went waaaaay back. However, the vast majority of them were do to a bug in the code that got fixed in the August 9th update. The old code thought articles being moved to a new name via a deletion were new articles that needed to be reviewed. Okeyes' wonderful minions fixed it. Okeyes has mentioned the old way isn't going to be removed anytime soon and feel free to use it. It takes 1-2 seconds for the curation bar to load for me. I'm using Firefox on Windows 7. What browser are you using? Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Firefox on Windows 7. Same for me. It's noticeably slower, while that javascript thing whirls. And the bar covers some of the text. Also, it's hard, once I've opened the bar to get the window moved up so that I can click on it. Maybe those are bugs that'll get fixed! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The contacting the author feature is awesome! That said, there's some minor issues. If you look at User talk:அமிழ்து you'll note that the title is used with underscores. In addition it should be wikilinked. On another note, I didn't realize what the default note was so my comment was pretty redundant. I can't think of a lot more that could be added in addition to the default message, so I'd persoally like to see it reduced. RyanVesey04:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As another note on contacting the author, when you are looking at page creator information and you click on contribs, you end up on a non-existent page starting with New Pages triage. RyanVesey14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and when a warning is added to user's talk page, can an edit summary be used? Right now, an automatic one kicks in most of the time ("←Created page with '{{subst:Spam-warn-NPF|User:Yelltekinc/sandbox}}'"). David1217What I've done23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I was playing with the New Pages Feed myself this evening (very cool), and it correctly added two of three pages I tagged as CSD to the log. Not sure why it skipped the third. Might have been a slow connection problem at my end... BusterD (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We're going to be building a centralised log :). It'll be a single log of all PROD/AFD and CSD actions, and hopefully filterable by type of action as well as by user. And, of course, it's not reliant on editors using a specific js gadget and then opting in, meaning it'll be much more consistent. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't use Chrome either - I'm quite happy with FFox and I don't see why I should be forced to either changing my browser or operating system for Wkipedia. Browsers are already getting too heavy for people in countries with slower connections. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was talking about forcing you to do anything; if you report the bug, we'll fix it if we can :). Joe was simply trying to give another data point so we could easily rule out it being an all-browser issue. I'm going to stick it in Bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, absolutely not trying to say it shouldn't work in FF, just trying to put data out to the developers. Sorry I wasn't clear! --j⚛e deckertalk23:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Weird, I just downloaded FF 14.0.1 onto this machine (running the latest Mountain Lion MacOSX) and am getting the text at the bottom. Kudpung, you got any extensions loaded, AdBlock, flash or JS blockers, that sort of thing? Since I have a completely untouched FF install I'd be happy (if you're open to it) to try and work to replicate what's not working, maybe I can give the devs a hint as to where to look. --j⚛e deckertalk23:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have js enabled in FFox of course, and I'm running the current release without any addons. I'm stuck with SnowLeopard (10.6.8) because Lion and MountainLion cannot be purchased for the $19 download here, and it's not available on DVD except on pirate releases. Looks like I will have to wait until I buy a new Mac, and that won't be for some time yet - I bought a new MacBookPro only just over a year ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool, I'm not convinced Mt. Lion is the problem, but I'll play around with stuff and see if I can figure out how to reproduce it. The goal should not be "Kudpung has to upgrade", the goal is to narrow down the bug so it's reproducible for devs so it can easily be corrected." Seems the least I can do, I have a long unpaid debt to you over some dubious Thai footballers many years back. I still have a machine at Lion, I'll try that too.--j⚛e deckertalk02:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
@Joe: Just to be sure that you are not confusing the MacOSX releases, I'm using Snow Leopard, (10.6.8) not Lion or Mountain Lion (10.7.x). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
@Kudpung, yeah. I'd try a SL system if I had one for sure. I don't know if that's related to teh problem, but I haven't been able to repro on my systems. I'll still keep poking at it now and again. I had just hoped that if could change one thing and have it go from working-for-me to not-working-for-me, and I knew what that thing was, tat that would be a Clue to the underlying cause. Doesn't look as if we'll get that lucky. :( --j⚛e deckertalk21:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice tool, looks good - but some fairly important CSD criteria are missing from it, such as A7-Band, G7 (Author requesting deletion or blanked page) and G8 (Subpages dependent on a non-existent page (like a talk page, for example) - Otherwise, this don't look too bad.
A7-band is definitely there as "no indication of importance (musical recordings)"; is it not appearing for you? The others, we can add :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, David1217 - that kinda wasn't what I meant. Okeyes, the issue is that I missed A7 (Band) because now that you've pointed it out, I can see that it's worded incorrectly in the Page curation tool. "no indication of importance (musical recordings)" isn't correct. A7 (Band) is for "an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." - It doesn't mention "Musical recordings" anywhere :) That's why I missed it, Okeyes. FishBarking?19:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, so David was right :). A7 (band) is under the general no-indication-of-importance-yadda-yadda tag; (musical recordings) is a different criteria (A9, I think?) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose he was, Okeyes. As a side, since the A7 tag in the curation bar is very generalized, how about setting the code so that when you tag for A7, it subdivides and allows you to pick which of the A7 criteria applies to the item you're nominating, instead of just sticking a general tag on it? FishBarking?19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Maintenance tags (unreferenced/primary sources/orphan/...) are usually placed at the top of the article (with the exception of the uncategorized tag). In particular, it's the way TWINKLE is set up. On 2011 Gomelsky Cup, the curation toolbar placed {{unreferenced}} at the bottom of the article. It's not a huge annoyance of course but it should be easy to fix and it's probably worth fixing to avoid top-and-bottom tagging. Pichpich (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! (well, not excellent that it happened - excellent that we've worked out the problem). I'll get the codemonkeys on it now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding it, but I remember a discussion at the village pump about removing a trash can icon from a deletion template with a lot of support. This is my best memory of it; it was years ago, maybe 2006ish. We delete many articles, and many are indeed trash, but many are not trash at all, while being nevertheless unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The feed is not nearly as much in the face or on the radar of new users whose articles have been tagged for deletion as would be a deletion template with a trash icon, but I still think we should not use this icon. I would suggest instead . It would also be good to have differentiation between speedy tags, prods and AfD nominations, possibly with different icons for each, but certainly with respect to the rollover text. Maybe even distinguishing, for speedies, the criterion it was tagged under.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Fuhghettaboutit on this one. Even if it's appropriate for most cases, it's an unnecessarily aggressive symbol and there should be good, friendlier alternatives. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The only sort order (obviously) available should be "oldest first".
This doesn't prevent - but does somewhat mitigate- a large number of bad dynamics we've learned about from the use of automated tools wrt too-speedy deletion.
This also ensures that all pages are ultimately patrolled.
And I disagree. We have a lot of problematic articles that come in. Some are just some guy's garage band, sure, but some are attack pages, or copyvios, or seriously manky, problematic stuff that needs to be killed with fire and oversighted. We should not be removing the only way to reliably find them and delete them quickly. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, but not with the logic. ;-)
Get a piece of paper and draw a stack (Last In, First Out) which is what you get when you use the Newest First sort order. (or you can just imagine the stack in your head, if you have a good imagination.)
Fill the stack with say 10 or 20 items to begin with.
Some of the items are good (black), some are Bad (red).
Now add some number of items to the top of the stack (new pages coming in), or remove them from the top of the stack. (patrolled)
When do you get around to dealing with the Bad/red items at the bottom of the stack?
Now make a FIFO (First in, First Out) Queue instead, by ordering Oldest First.
Try the same (thought/paper) experiment again.
Fill the queue with say 10 or 20 items to begin with.
Some of the items are good (black), some are Bad (red).
Add items to one end of the queue (new pages coming in), remove them from the OTHER end of the queue (patrolled)
How long does it take for pages at the back of the queue to be end up patrolled?
LIFO (newest first) prioritizes items that have been on wiki *most recently*, and worst case may never touch all items. Pages at the bottom of the stack don't get touched until the stack is almost empty. The average time is somewhat higher than FIFO (due to the bottom of the stack sitting there just short of forever), and the deviation is high (because items near the top of the stack get handled faster than items near the bottom).
FIFO (oldest first) prioritizes items that have been on wiki the *longest*. It will touch all the pages in the queue sooner or later, as they come up in the queue. The average time is lower than LIFO, and the deviation is very low (both these effects are due to each item waiting roughly the same amount of time "in the buffer").
So which procedure is most reliably fast? Which would you prefer to have when dealing with high sensitivity pages?
Y'mean like all our engineers? :). I did talk to them - I've spoken to engineers, product managers, designers. The near-universal sentiment is "it would be awesome if we didn't have to do this sucky thing, but it's the least-sucky thing under the current setup". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It would indeed be a continuation of the suck if you leave things as is.
But I think there would actually be the first start at improvement if we make things "oldest first".(check the logic for yourself). It's a very old issue, and no one has had a chance to fix it, until now.
There's an opportunity here, and I hope folks take it! :-)
And it's a very old issue that people haven't fixed for a good reason. Don't get me wrong, I can see a couple of possible solutions that would let us make that change:
Pending Changes. When that comes on, the need to have NPPers immediately screening for the really nasty stuff dies. But I somehow doubt that would solve the more philosophical objections :).
We used to NOINDEX unpatrolled/reviewed articles in this tool; we had an RfC on it, people were overwhelmingly in support. This would solve the problem completely if we turned it back on - there was a bug that necessitated turning it off, which is now solved. Would that solve it? I think this is the more likely and immediate fix.
You seem to think that "newest first" allows NPPers to immediately screen for the nastiest stuff. This is a misconception.
While it does give the impression of some "nasty stuff" being removed faster, and allows people to "score points" in a way; a large(r) amount of "nasty stuff" remains unpatrolled on the wiki for a relatively long time.
This is why "newest first" is such a dangerous temptation.
Gamification is not necessarily bad by the way, but do make the rules something beneficial for the wiki!
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Your 2 proposals would make "newest first" safer, but "oldest first" is inherently safe to begin with and I still haven't gotten around to mentioning user retention
What about changing the A1 and A3 deletion templates to be time delayed similar to the "no license" deletions used for files? The template could look less bitey than a normal CSD template, let the article creator know that the article needed improvement, and wait (for example) 12 hours before adding the article to the candidates for speedy deletion category. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I talked a bit with Jorm. He couldn't quite explain, but his explanation suggests there's some interesting statisticalness going on at the newest first end of the spectrum, which is why he did it at all... Do you have any data on this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Multiple CSD criteria
I'm still trying to compare Page Curation with good ol' TWINKLE and I rather like the option TWINKLE gives to tag an article with multiple speedy deletion criteria. This may look useless from the perspective of the deleting admin but the point is that the talk page message sent to the creator lists multiple criteria. Most typically, this would be a copyright violation and an A7 "no claim of importance" type of problem. It's important to communicate to the creator that both problems are fatal. I've seen a couple of times an editor carefully rewriting his submission to avoid the copyright problem and getting whacked with an A7 deletion. The result is, understandably, a pretty pissed editor and multiple criteria tagging can avoid this. Pichpich (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I prefer Twinkle as it's much faster and more flexible. Page Curation is very slow, (that javascript thing has to whirl around every minute or so), I have to move the box around in order to click it (which takes time as it jumps around) and I've much less control. Also Page Curation occasionally turns up on regular pages that aren't in the Page Curation queue and has to be clicked closed to get it out of the way. What causes this? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's a question for me or for Mathew so let me answer both. :-) An example of a page I recently tagged for "double" speedy deletion is Jj yosh which I can't access but the interesting part is the message that TWINKLE left on User talk:Jscamaro. As for the Page Curation box popping up everywhere, I've definitely had the same problem and I think it occurs on every recently created article even if you're not accessing it through the NewPage feed. It's only a mild annoyance if you know what it is but if you don't, it's probably quite confusing. Pichpich (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But the slowness thing, and the whirling javascript is more than just an annoyance. (although every extra click you have to do - to close the bar when it turns up randomly - gets tiring.) Twinkle will still be an option, won't it? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I only use Twinkle for deletion. Most of the other tags are nicer on the page curation toolbar, but as far as I'm concerned, I see no reason to use the toolbar for deletion. It has fewer options and doesn't add a page to my log. RyanVesey21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit summaries
This may have already been brought up: Edit summaries such as Added tags to the page using PageTriage are not helpful, especially for editors who are working from deletion logs, cats, and watchlists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Could the system be tweaked so that editors adding {{disputed}} are prompted to add a message explaining the problem - or, more radically, so that the tag cannot be added if the article has not got a talk page. See Template:Disputed: "First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. Then place {{Disputed}} at the top of the disputed article.". To add this template with no explanation is just a waste of everyone's time. See an example of its addition using "PageTriage". PamD09:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, The Page Curation system appears to add: {{unreferenced|date=August 2012}}{{stub}} all on one line (see diff used in "Disputed" above). It would make life easier for stub-sorters if the {{stub}} tag was on its own line, preferably preceded by a blank line as I think is specified somewhere. Easier to find it quickly, fewer keystrokes to edit to put it on its own line. PamD09:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Found it at Wikipedia:WSS#General_rules: "Two blank lines should be left between the first stub tag and whatever precedes it (but only one blank line between the last stub tag and any succeeding interlanguage links)."PamD09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles not being tagged
There are occasions I've found where I've tagged an article and marked it as reviewed using the checkbox. The problem is, sometimes the toolbar gets stuck and doesn't tag the article. I recently found out that it is marking the article as reviewed before it places the tag. Can this be changed so that if it is not tagged for some reason, the article is not marked as reviewed? RyanVesey20:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess this is the way it's supposed to be, but when you tag an article, it's not marked as reviewed. So I'm guessing there's a reason for this, so I don't go back and mark it reviewed. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Same with deletion, yep :). I'm arguing to have it so that marking it as delete-worthy or adding maintenance tags should automatically mark it as patrolled: we'll see what happens. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd want a checkbox to not do that if it was checked by default. Sometimes I want someone else to review it. What do we know on the issue of it marking a page as patrolled when it hasn't placed the tag (or tags) I chose on the article? RyanVesey21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There are currently 21402 unreviewed articles
This number doesn't seem correct. Considering the unreviewed backlog goes to the day we hit article 4 million and we've only created 30,000 some articles since then, it would imply that we've only reviewed 10,000 of those 30,000 articles. Heck, Dr. Blofeld probably created more than 10,000 articles since then and he's autopatrolled. In addition, the number doesn't seem to change, even when purging the page. Does anyone know where that number comes from? (Note that it is on top of the NewPagesFeed.) RyanVesey20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It includes redirects, which explains the number. Do people think it would be more useful if we excluded them from the count? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize redirects weren't included by default. Is there any way I can create a customized default preference? RyanVesey21:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking for everything. It would be great for me to be able to set the defaults to don't show reviewed, show redirects, show unreviewed, show up for deletion. RyanVesey04:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I realized they are sticky, but they are dependent on my computer (so if I'm using a setting on one computer, it is not saved on another, when I go back to the first computer I still have the one setting). RyanVesey15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
We should remove redirects from the count, it's disheartening. I must've patrolled 100 or more redirects and the backlog increased by 500. RyanVesey20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any chance that while you are working, the curation toolbar could be possibly moved to the left hand side of the screen, so as not to obstruct the text you're checking over please? I know you can do it manually, but putting the bar and the curation box over the top of the text you're actually reading kind of messes things up. FishBarking?22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
We're looking at a couple of tweaks to move it out of the way (and also slightly higher, so that it doesn't go below the screen on small computers). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Fly-out toolbar
A couple of points:
'No problems have been found for this page so far' still shows even after the page has been tagged, and the feed reloaded. (see: Perry Rubenstein Gallery)
That would be because "problems" in an info sense don't include the tags :). We're changing both the title of that section and the contents. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If the 'leave a message for the creator' (an excellent feature BTW) has been used, it would be helpful if the fly-out info includes something like 'The patroller has left a friendly message on the creator's talk page' . (see: Perry Rubenstein Gallery)
There is a button to go to the next article on the list, but unless I have missed something, there is not one to return to the list. I think it would be helpful to have this for the use of editors who are doing selective patrolling.
ON second thought, do we actually want to patrol redirects?
I've been patrolling some redirects, but now that I think of it, should I/we? Edit filter 342 no longer catches redirects that were changed into articles. So if we patrol the redirect it won't be patrolled once it is turned into an article. I might be mistaken if there is some coding to unpatrol it at that point. RyanVesey16:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's turned into an article it'll appear again :). And I'd recommend redirect patrolling as a thing - earlier this week I found someone creating truly inappropriate redirects who had been slipping under the radar for months. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that, he's got a lot of unpatrolled redirects left too. A lot of them seem fine at first glance so I'm going to make sure I look at his redirects in their own group so I don't hastily approve them. I like that it gives the warning if the user has been blocked. On another note, what is the trigger that makes the page unpatrolled again? RyanVesey16:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I got that much :) I mean, what is it that automatically makes a page appear unreviewed if a redirect is expanded. I assumed an edit filter would have been necessary, but that edit filter hasn't run in almost 2 years. RyanVesey16:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahh! There's a hook built into MediaWiki that intercepts and checks edits at the software level. If it's gone from hash REDIRECT [string] to anything else, it registers it as a "this is ein new article". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
We'll probably work with more specific edit summaries ('tagging the article for deletion ("deletion explanation or type") using PageTriage', sorta thing) and try to build them into the software, but these look like an excellent basis to build from :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The current major problem is that the edit summaries look very cold and machine generated. Many times WP:AES kicks in. I'm trying to create edit summaries to combat that, so I love the idea of edit summaries that explain, or link to an explanation, of what you did. --Nathan2055talk - contribs19:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! Bugzilla sez that the dev-sourced edit summaries should be out Thursday; shall we take a look at them and see if they need tweaking? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Excess tagging, incompatible tags, cleanup demands a parameter
Among the eleven tags assigned using NPT to an 88-word stub (I A-7'd it and it's now been deleted while I've been typing, but admins may be able to see it), there were both "Unreferenced" and "Refimprove", and "Cleanup" with no parameters.
Could NPT:
Flag up some sort of warning when more than perhaps 6 tags are being assigned to a short article, as in "Do you really need to add all of these tags?"
Make it impossible to assign both "Unreferenced" and "Refimprove", and any other similarly incompatible pairs of tags
Insist on a reason parameter when "Cleanup" is used, to save the mess of red pixels on the screen when it's assigned without.
That user should not be patrolling pages at all. Tat's the first instance I've seen of use like this with NewPagesFeed, but wait till this cool tool goes live.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons has a patroller userright. If we get enough people patrolling, should we propose that here? Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed could be limited for those who have the right. RyanVesey00:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, we want to encourage patrollers...maybe have that right, have it automatically come with being autoconfirmed (as in it's automatic with meeting the same criteria), and therefore have it removable? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
. It would also be good to have differentiation between speedy tags, prods and AfD nominations, possibly with different icons for each, but certainly with respect to the rollover text. Maybe even distinguishing, for speedies, the criterion it was tagged under.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
