Meta | Commons | Wikibooks | Wikiquote | Wikisource | Wiktionary | Wikivoyage | Wikidata | Deutsch | Français | Nederlands

This message on this site, depending on the user-specified interface language:

   • en (English):

• af (Afrikaans / Afrikaans):
• ar (Arabic / العربية):
• bg (Bulgarian / Български):
• bn (Bengali / বাংলা):
• da (Danish / Dansk):
• de (German / Deutsch):
• eo (Esperanto / Esperanto):
• es (Spanish / Español):
• eu (Basque / Euskara):
• fr (French / Français):
• fy (West Frisian / Frysk):
• it (Italian / Italiano):
• la (Latin / Latina):
• li (Limburgian / Limburgs):
• nl (Dutch / Nederlands):
• no (Norwegian / ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬):
• pl (Polish / Polski):
• pt (Portuguese / Português):
• ru (Russian / Русский):
• sv (Swedish / Svenska):

Pages in the MediaWiki namespace regarding this message

{{editprotected}} Please change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&dir=prev&hidepatrolled=1 patrolling pages from the ''back'' of the unpatrolled backlog] to [{{fullurl:Special:NewPages|dir=prev&hidepatrolled=1}} 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)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Is it possible to add something along the lines of the uw-patrolled template...

Template:Uw-patrolled

...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)[reply]

 Not done 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)[reply]

See Wikipedia:MediaWiki_messages#BLP_PROD_.22Ad.22_in_MediaWiki:Newpages-summary Gigs (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done some time ago. Rd232 ^talk 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The advice exists because we don't want to put off new content creators who've saved an early draft. The idea is to avoid tagging such articles within the first, say, 15 minutes. The type of articles we're talking about do not need to be deleted immediately (unlike G10), so a slight delay is aimed at not WP:BITEing newcomers. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"15 minutes" works for me. Maurreen (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{uw-draftfirst}}. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I concur that this should not be in the new pages instructions. With due respect to Rd232, this suggestion (it's not a requirement and never has been) would best be placed in a page such as Help:Guide to new page patrolling. Linking essays (or even just referring to the titles of essays) from this page gives a misleading impression that they enjoy consensus and that they are instructions. WP:DEMOLISH exists, but so do WP:BUILDER, WP:REALPROBLEM, and WP:BEEF. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How's this? Stifle (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]