Talk:Page Curation

Jump to: navigation, search

About this discussion

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL

Modifying Page Info on disambiguation pages

Swpb (talkcontribs)

It's usually a good thing that Page Info lists "No citations" under "Possible issues" – but not in the case of disambiguation pages, which are explicitly not supposed to have citations. Could the Page Curation toolbar be modified to prevent this notice from appearing on any page containing a disambiguation tag (of which there are several, including aliases)?

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

The disambiguation templates were actually standardised with Extension:Disambiguator.

Quiddity (talkcontribs)

Filed as phab:T76198 (but will need a volunteer, as nobody is currently officially assigned to work on that extension)

Reply to "Modifying Page Info on disambiguation pages"

A button for returning the new page feed page.

Mys 721tx (talkcontribs)

It will be nice to have such button so curators can go back to the full list if they decided to skip some of the new pages.

Reply to "A button for returning the new page feed page."
Twikij (talkcontribs)

If a page was reviewed, and then was updated, does it go back to unreviewed status? I'm currently using FlaggedRevs and was wondering if this could replace that.

This post was posted by Twikij, but signed as

Reply to "Newbie question"
Tgr (talkcontribs)

Are there any plans to deploy the page curation toolbar on other language versions (by default, or on request)?

Steven (WMF) (talkcontribs)

In lieu of a plan to do this kind of deployment by default, any community that wants a new extension like this should request it on Bugzilla.

Reply to "Other wikis"

Will this be released as a Mediawiki extension?

Konjurer (talkcontribs)

Will this be released as a Mediawiki extension? This is really a neat idea. I could see my organization using this tool.

Tychay (talkcontribs)

It is already an extension available through our Git repository

git clone
Reply to "Will this be released as a Mediawiki extension?"
Nathan2055 (talkcontribs)

I'd like to try to write some patches for this to fix small bugs I've encountered. Any chance I could at least see the source code? Thanks!

Jorm (WMF) (talkcontribs)

I'm certain that it's visible at the git repository. Do you have git access?

Nathan2055 (talkcontribs)

...I don't know. (Bear with me, I'm new to git) Someone at enwiki did give me a link to this gerrit repository, though. Is that right?

Jeroen De Dauw (talkcontribs)

Yes, it does appear to be that repository. This is not properly documented. I spend 10 mins looking for it, and I'm an experienced dev that knows where to look.

Sharihareswara (WMF) (talkcontribs)

Nathan, I'm sorry that I did not run across this earlier. Yes, I believe;a=summary is right. And if you could point to the page on enwiki where someone mentioned this to you, I'd be much obliged -- that way I can communicate with them as well. Thanks!

Developer access is how you can get a Git account to submit your changes directly into our source control, and please also feel free to ask questions in our chat channel.

DanielRenfro (talkcontribs)

This might help those of us unfamiliar with git:

git clone
Tychay (talkcontribs)


I found Patrick's tutorial very good. If you do get to the point of submitting the change to gerrit, can you add "tychay" to the "reviewer" list? I'd like to see if I can expedite reviewing the change for submission. :-)


Reply to "Source code?"
Dthomsen8 (talkcontribs)

New mainspace articles are reviewed (or not) in two entirely different and completely independent processes.

Here is how articles are added to the All unreviewed new articles category:

The New unreviewed article template is added automatically to articles created via the Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 (the discussion page is at WT:WIZ2). The template puts the article in the category. The Category:All unreviewed new articles list is independently generated and is not connected to the New Pages list, and the user’s Autopatrolled status does not affect articles in the category.

Here is how the autopatrolled right works:

A person without the autopatrolled right creates a page. The MediaWiki software immediately lists the page at Special:NewPages, and highlights it in yellow. A human patroller, as part of the New Page Patrol process, reviews the article and clicks on the link to mark the page as patrolled if it does not qualify for speedy deletion.
A person with the autopatrolled right creates a page. The MediaWiki software lists the page at Special:NewPages but marks it as patrolled and does not highlight it in yellow. The software (rather than a human) marks the page as patrolled.
See new pages feed.

Anyone examining how new mainspace articles should be reviewed should study the two entirely different processes work now, and consider combining the processes or changing them to work together, rather than entirely independently.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nathan2055 (talkcontribs)

WIZS pipes articles through the AfC pocress now, however I would like to see support for the ureviewed article tagging in NPT.

Dthomsen8 (talkcontribs)

I agree, but it seems that this is not being considered by the Page Curation project. Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply to "Two processes for new article reviews" (talkcontribs)

Weird boxes saying "This is a tool icon" have started appearing on various pages on en.wikipedia, without discernable patterns. They disappear when making null edits, or even when just purging the page, but I suspect they'll reappear after a while (probably elsewhere, but whatever). Firebug, Google, a bunch of null edits, some friends who found some more examples, and Special:Code lead me here.

Proof that they exist: , (may disappear when examined), (will not disappear).

Could someone explain what that obvious debug code is doing on production servers with hundreds of millions of users?

-- 14:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to "Some debug code seems to have escaped"
Steven (WMF) (talkcontribs)

From a research perspective, creating a log with an identifiable action type (nominating/removing nomination) is incredibly useful. </twocents>

Reply to "Log:Nominated for Deletion"
Raylton P. Sousa (talkcontribs)

There is also chance that serve not only to new pages as well as for editions in pages? (I think it would be very useful to be able to mark the reason for the reversion in a manner similar to that used to delete)

And there was a chance to view pages revised by default(like flaggedrevs) instead of "protection page" (I think it would be helpful to protect fewer pages)

Reply to "Possibilites"