MediaWiki talk:Newpages-summary

message: Please change patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog to [ patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog] so that users of the secure server are not moved to the non-secure server needlessly. Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 09:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secure link 

message: Is it possible to add something along the lines of the uw-patrolled template...
 Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages! Since you appear to be relatively new user and have not been marking new pages you review as patrolled, I was just wondering if you knew about this facility and its purpose. At Special:Newpages, pages that have not been patrolled are shown in , to indicate they have not been reviewed (and as "unreviewed when using Special:NewPagesFeed a/k/a page curation). It may be a good idea to use the "mark this page as patrolled" link at the bottom of the new page if you think you have performed the standard patrolling tasks and do not wish a second opinion. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project.
...to the top of the Special:Newpages to remind editors to mark pages that they have patrolled as such?  More and more recently I find myself "duplicating efforts". Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to deploy here yet. Please read the edit protected documentation. I did toy around for a minute, but adding that to the current content makes this introduction to Special:NewPages almost double in height. More than I think many editors would find acceptable. Please prepare an exact design (you can use a personal sandbox or something). If you think it might be controversial, notify the Village Pump. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Patrolled reminder

message: See Wikipedia:MediaWiki_messages#BLP_PROD_.22Ad.22_in_MediaWiki:Newpages-summary Gigs (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: some time ago. Rd232 talk 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed addition 

message: I just noticed "don't demolish the house while it's still being built: articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation."  This is plain old bad advice.  What's it doing in here??  Friday (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that myself...if an article comes out with a title "Blue sunshine" and content of "blue", I don't see why it can't be tagged as no context...it just doesn't make sense to wait any amount of time to tag it. It's usually easy to tell the difference between when it's a house being built and when it's just a board on the ground. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in those contexts, you're right. But there is some amount of tagging, such as for references, that happens to soon. Maurreen (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never tag A1 or A3 for no references unless the content wouldn't stand without them (i.e. if the article I created here had the sentence "Howard B. Bluestein is a meteorologist", no infobox, and no references, I would tag as A1 because it would be lacking sufficient context to identify exactly which meteorologist he is) and would probably userify a list of references only rather than tag as A1. I don't know...I've never really understood why we need to wait on A1 or A3, because from when I first started new page patrolling, I thought they were specifically meant for new articles with no context or no content. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, perhaps creating Help:New page patrolling (or would it be better placed at Wikipedia:New page patrolling guidelines?) would be a good idea. I'm not sure...there's so much to say that I think it could stand to have a help page of some kind with a link in the notice, cause otherwise the notice is just going to get complicated. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, well ok 15 minutes is fine...the way it's phrased currently I've always taken it to mean we should wait a couple three days...would it be a good idea to put in the 15 minute guideline rather than "moments after creation"? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "15 minutes" works for me. Maurreen (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No set timeframe helps guide people toward the right behavior.  If the article might turn into useful content, it's good to let it be for a while.  But as soon as it becomes clear that the article is not headed toward being useful content, it's time for it to go away.  It probably puts the newbies off more to have them spend substantial time on an article that's going to be deleted.  If the content is crap, it's best gotten rid of quickly.  When in doubt, userfying is a good in-between option.  But this "wait 15 minutes" stuff is just more bad advice.  Friday (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should try and elaborate a bit more on this, more than we can in the MediaWiki notice itself. For instance, to talk about userfication and also . Is there somewhere suitable for guidelines for New Page Patrol, which could be linked from the MediaWiki notice? Rd232 talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps creating Help:New page patrolling (or would it be better placed at Wikipedia:New page patrolling guidelines?) would be a good idea. I'm not sure...there's so much to say that I think it could stand to have a help page of some kind with a link in the notice, cause otherwise the notice is just going to get complicated. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it could be a separate short-and-sweet summary page; or maybe an extra, brief "Overview" section in Wikipedia:New pages patrol would make sense. The latter should really be linked from the MediaWiki notice anyway, shouldn't it? Rd232 talk 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Please pay more attention to what you are doing. The reference to not applying A1 and A3 prematurely had been there since 3 December 2009  until you started removing it because of my adding mention of a relevant essay. (And BTW I only added the essay in order to give the line a snappy summary, not to somehow promote the essay.) Rd232 talk 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, WP:BUILDER and WP:REALPROBLEM are not addressed at New Page Patrollers, they're aimed at content creators; so they're not really relevant here. WP:BEEF, on the other hand, is a variation of WP:DEMOLISH. Bottom line, well-established helpful essays are well-established helpful essays, not guidelines or policies, and we should be able to mention them if relevant. However, linking Wikipedia:New pages patrol would be better, for brevity. But again, in an improved Wikipedia:New pages patrol, with a new Overview section, mentioning those essays is perfectly reasonable, at least as See Alsos. So anyway, can you re-add the A1/A3 mention, and put in a link to Wikipedia:New pages patrol? Rd232 talk 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? Stifle (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: inelegant - the phrase you object to served a purpose. But fine, whatever, it's OK. Rd232 talk 15:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Moments after creation" 

message: Please delete the phrase "consider  instead.". According to the template talk, new unreviewed article is intended to indicate someone is using the New Article Wizard. 
* The time spent tagging the article could be better spent reviewing it.
* The mark page as patrolled link doesn't appear unless the editor accesses the page from the New Pages special page. So it's not clear what a user coming onto the page from elsewhere is supposed to do with the tag.
* The mark page as patrolled link doesn't appear unless the editor accesses the page from the New Pages special page. So the new page patroller already knows it's a new page.
* The time spent by the new page patroller cold be better spent reviewing another page rather than having to edit the page to remove the tag. (And with a one month backlog this would be a good thing.) Gerardw (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove reference to template 

message: Could an sysop fix the grammar like instead of "don't bite the newcomers" we put "Don't bite the newcomers".  I saw lots.  ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's not the start of a new sentence, and the other clauses start with lower case.Gerardw (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  English grammar 

message: I think there should be a notice alerting people about The new page Triage.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify the exact wording you would like adding. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Please add a note saying that attack pages (CSD G10) must be blanked. Also the note about proposed deletion of unreferenced BLPs des not have correct punctuation, "Twinkle is recommended for this; or see template:prod blp for manual tagging instructions;" must be changed to "Twinkle is recommended for this, or see template:prod blp for manual tagging instructions;"
jfd34 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anomie⚔ 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 09:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 

message: Could you please help me to point out where the codes show up the yellow highlight for identified user's newpages patrol and sysop's patrol. Thanks.--Cheers! (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  code controls the highlights visible for sysop and normal user  

message: Add a sentence about redirects created from page moves, which do not appear in the list.
GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This sounds a bit like instruction creep to me. Plus, you would need to say the actual wording that you wanted to be added. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 3 October 2015 

message: I am requesting that the phrase created after 18 March 2010 be removed from the section about BLPPRODding unsourced BLPs, because all articles seen through Special:NewPages were created after March 18, 2010. Pppery  (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adjusted this line, but made it clear it was for newly created pages, don't want people to point this notice as a policy statement in regards to old pages. — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 3 August 2016 

message: :Please change: "A preference option that hides patrolled new pages by default is available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc."
:To: "A preference option that hides patrolled new pages by default is available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. An alternative script is available for the same."
:Thanks. Lourdes 17:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See next section - if we are going to add this in here we don't need multiple copies to your user script. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Thanks. But these are different scripts, and not the same scripts referred to in both these messages. Lourdes 14:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Lourdes 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, undid the notdone; will leave open for some more comments.  I'm not really comfortable with using interface messages to advertise personal scripts that are intended to be linked (as you could change the script at any time).  Perhaps this could be published as a Gadget though? — xaosflux Talk 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Just a clarification. I'm okay with the script being transferred to any other page away from my .js space (assuming the issue might be to this being perceived as a personal script). Also, the Gadget idea sounds very good. I'll leave a note at the relevant page for that. Lourdes 16:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

text: hows this - can I fully protect your two script pages (preventing you from changing it) as a stop-gap while you wait to see if this moves to a gadget?  You would need to fill out edit requests for your own page if updates are needed. — xaosflux Talk 02:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , how would you consider the following option. You may fully protect both the pages right now. I would suggest that if the scripts have been fully protected, we may include them in the interface message as requested till the time my request to include them as gadgets is accepted. Does that sound sensible? I'll go as per your suggestion. Thanks for taking the time out to review this. Lourdes 03:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if they become gadgets we will need to update this again to point to the gadgets and the protection will not be needed. — xaosflux Talk 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

text: — xaosflux Talk 03:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 December 2016 

message: :Please change: "Page Curation, is a feature-rich purpose built system to review new pages. Try it. Before patrolling pages for the first time, be sure to have read and fully understood the instructions at New Pages Patrol."
:To: "Page Curation is a feature-rich purpose built system to review new pages. Try it. A script for accessing the Page Curation tool is also available. Before patrolling pages for the first time, be sure to have read and fully understood the instructions at New Pages Patrol."
:Thanks. Lourdes 17:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 03:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 December 2016 

message: * In MediaWiki:Newpages-summary, the line "An alternative script is available for the same." may be changed to "An alternative script is available for the same."
The documentation page is better worded than the script page itself in the directions to install the script. Thanks and cheers. Lourdes 14:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update request 

message: Please remove  from the bit about BLPproding, per WT:BLPPROD#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? Pppery 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 20:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 27 May 2017 

message: In the third bullet point "Attack pages (CSD G10) must be blanked", to aid new administrators and those considering a request for adminship, a link to the definition of page blanking "Wikipedia:Page_blanking" would be helpful: change "blanked" to "blanked". Hedles (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 December 2018 

message: Please replace
A preference option that hides patrolled new pages by default is available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. An alternative script is available for the same.
with
A preference option that hides patrolled new pages by default is available at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc. An alternative script is available for the same.
to hide the note from users who aren't new page reviewers or administrators, since they don't have access to that preference option, nor can they filter the feed by patrolled vs unpatrolled. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 May 2019 

message: Please replace
New files do not appear here (only pages created without a corresponding local file). You can see and patrol new files at Special:NewFiles.
with
New files do not appear here (only pages created without a corresponding local file). You can see and patrol new files at Special:NewFiles.
This hides the "and patrol" text from users who aren't new page reviewers or admins, since such users can't patrol pages. Pinging , who helped with a similar request above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 22 May 2019 

message: Please remove obsolete HTML by changing
: Pages older than one month are not shown. For a log of recently patrolled pages see Special:Log/patrol.
to
: Pages older than one month are not shown. For a log of recently patrolled pages see Special:Log/patrol.
— Anomalocaris (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 13 August 2019 

message: If purpose built is a compound adjective that modifies the following noun, use a hyphen. (purpose-built)
For a log of recently patrolled pages see Special:Log/patrol. Possibly missing comma found. pages, EthanGaming7640 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - regarding "purpose-built", your note about a possible comma to change is not clear - please be specific and open a new ER if needed. — xaosflux Talk 18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 23 September 2021 

message: Please change  to Before patrolling pages for the first time to avoid using  in an interface message unnecessarily. Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: subst'd it in. — xaosflux Talk 14:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 9 February 2023 

message: Swap out the link to User:Lourdes/SpecialNewPages for User:Schminnte/PageCuration as the forked actively maintained version of the same script. Sohom (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: without any actual "endorsement" of the alternative version. — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 2 November 2023 

message: After touching the message from Special:NewPages, it appears that there is a text saying that unreviewed pages are marked as yellow. Why I can't see the yellow marking? Toadette (Happy holiday!) 11:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because only New Page Reviewers have the right to see it. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow?