Jump to content

Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Archive 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Page Curation | Suggested improvements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Novem Linguae (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 11 July 2022 (→Article patrol status after refund/undelete: archived using OneClickArchiver)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
For ease of navigation, this archive is for suggested improvements 51-100 numerically, rather than based on archiving time --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

51. Allow users to override infinite scrolling of the feed

The infinite scrolling interface is annoying and unproductive. Even to go back a few days in the queue requires way too much user input. To get to the vast middle of the queue is onerous. There should be an option to load everything in the queue (at least for pages created by new users), or to load pages similar to how it is done in Special:RecentChanges.- MrX 15:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T167475
See Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#15._Jumpback above. Tracked at the right Phab Task. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


52. Allow patroller to send message to editor without tagging or un-reviewing/re-reviewing

 Done
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207442

I often add tags to an article I've come across, perhaps while stub-sorting, using Twinkle as usual, and then realise that it's awaiting NPP. I might want to send a message to the creator ... but I can't do so without adding another tag. I've been known to add a duplicate tag, send the message using the Curation toolbar, then edit again to remove duplicate. PamD 17:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I want that feature too. @PamD: I usually "unreview" the article for a sec, and then mark it as reviewed again. This gives an option to snd a message to the creator. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Very useful PamD. I've often wondered about this myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that the message to creator feature should allow you to sent a message without un-reviewing and re-reviewing the article (which pings the original patroller with a talk page message saying that you unreviewed it). @PamD: Given the current limitations, when I need to do this and I wasn't the original one to review it (if I am I can just un-reviewing/re-review it), I use sometimes use the 'Wikilove' section, and I copy the page's title into the header instead of "A Kitten for you!", then write my message. They also receive a kitten photo... but that can't be a bad thing. It has the added advantage that you can pick which page participant to send the message to (rather than just the original creator, who might have only made a redirect). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere, Usernamekiran, PamD, and Kudpung: I've got a question about this on Meta (sorry to fragment the discussion). Please comment at your leisure. Best, — MusikAnimal talk 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

53. Allow filtering by no citations

done
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T169120

Adding a filter to the new pages feed to allow patrollers to see which pages are marked by the software as having no citations would be helpful. I have created this task in phab. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Support This would be a useful way to prioritise our patrolling. Boleyn (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

54. Send feedback to talk page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207443

While working on reviewing "older" new pages, I sometimes notice that I'm sending feedback to someone who created a redirect that has been turned into an article by someone else. I think I've asked for a feature to select the recipient, but I now think that such a feature clutters the UI and makes things more complicated. It occurred to me that it would be better to post the feedback to the talk page and leave a notification for the creator/main contributor instead. That way, the tags have a context that is more easily accessible to other contributors. Is there support for such a change? Mduvekot (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely would like to be able to automatically record comments (eg: Noting that a page appears to pass an SNG), without necessarily needing for it to notify the page creator. The way to do it might be to have a field for user to notify, and automatically populate it with page creator. That could be replaced with one or more users (separated by commas?), or left blank for article talkpage comment but no notification. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I completely support the idea of leaving feedback on an article's talk page. But obviously only when it's useful to other editors to improve that article. Unaware of this thread, I today suggested a similar idea on this page. In essence, I propose an option to "Add copy of comments to article's talk page". It would probably need some covering text, such as:
A New Page Reviewer has left feedback for the creator of this article. The following extract may also be of relevance to other editors in improving this page: (insert text and autosignature).
It would be good to hear what support other reviewers would give for such a function. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

57. List of previous creators of an article

Page creation log is now live at: special:log/create. — usernamekiran(talk) 19:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently, only the admin who deleted the page/article is visible; but not the creator.
    • "What links here" is usable only if the user hasnt blanked his talkpage.
    • Xtools/sigma show the creation by a particular user, but not creators of a page/article.
  • If new page reviewers are able to creators of a deleted, or recreated pages; it would be very helpful to catch PR accounts, and/or socks.

Adding such a feature to new pages feed would be complicated. But if only new page reviewers (and nobody else except sysops) could see it in page history, the proposed feature may become reality. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an issue with the deletion log, not with page curation. However, I would like to see a warning pop up that the page was previously deleted when reviewing a new article, and I would support this having the previous creators listed. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

58. Add the Sources exist Tag

 Done
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207451

Can we please add the {{sources exist}} tag to the page curation toolbar? This tag would be immensely useful in reducing duplicate work required and would be an easy way of notifying other editors "yes I did a search and I found a bunch of stuff". It would also make it so that NPP reviewers could mark articles as reviewed and AfC reviewers could 'accept' drafts that might not "demonstrate" notability, but were clearly notable when the reviewer did a search (i.e. they could add the tag indicating why they accepted it). All in all just a useful variant of the {{more references}} tag. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Second this - I have been missing it. A further absent tag that often comes in handy is {{Incomplete}}, BTW. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
This has been  Done through [1] Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

59. Wikidata

Not a priority - out of scope for NPR

It'd be useful for Special:NewPagesFeed to indicate whether an article is linked to a wikidata item, and where so, to provide the Qid as a link. The indication / link would enable action to be taken to create a link or a wikidata item, and facilitate an inspection of a linked item, from the feed page. Not least, a number of en.wikipedia project have a dependency on good linkage to wikidata - e.g. Women in Red. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

NPR is a front-line triage. I don't see how this is particularly useful at this stage of patrolling. NPR is not the quick-fix station. Repairs or enhancements get done later. Flagging this suggestion as low priority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
A wikidata item is useful for gathering hints towards verifying that a new article is a real "thing" on another wiki, or whether the author is indulging in a multi-wiki spam fest. However, the wikidata link is on the left hand menu when you visit the article, I too fail to see its usefulness in NPF.
If I understand your need Tagishsimon, a link to the article's name in Wikidata, whether it's been linked to the new enwiki article or not, is what would best serve your purpose. I'm sure a link to
[[:d:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}]]
in your More menu would do the job. I'm not sure how to do that... Enterprisey?? -- Cabayi (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

...Or there's Yair rand's tool (available as a gadget on meta) which may satisfy your needs. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

60. Add information link to 'Notices' message sent to article creator

Closed at Phab. Templates are locally configurable
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T204464

Hi, I received a message on my 'Notices' icon containing 'The page <article name> has been reviewed', a link to the article I had created (which appeared unchanged), a link to the user that performed the review, but nothing to explain the review's outcome or what a review entails.

I believe adding the same Learn more link that exists on the New pages feed to the notification text would be beneficial, especially as a new editor such as myself, or if possible a direct link to the details/outcome of the review?

– Paul · ✉ 13:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Low priority. Telling a user their page hass been reviewed is just fine. If no further comment is necessary, then no further comment is necessary. They have enough places to ask for help when they need it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Configurable in {{Reviewednote-NPF}}. No change to the software is necessary. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

61. Articles to go back into NPR queue when overwritten

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207446

Proposed here. When all or a very large proportion of an article's content is overwritten with new material, the article should be marked as unpatrolled and added to the NPR queue. This is virtually creation of a new article, but can be done by IPs and new accounts, and is often a sign of conflict-of-interest editing: Noyster (talk), 11:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, Noyster. What number of bytes do you think should trigger the alarm? Join the development discussion n the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018 before it's too late. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

62. "on behalf of"

Done
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T204464

I recently unreviewed a page (unintentionally), which triggered this note to be posted to Jbhunley's talk page. The note itself is no problem and seems like a good idea, however, it is signed by me as though I personally wrote it and the edit history shows the same, in contrast - for instance - to other auto-generated notices which will often carry the disclaimer, for instance, "Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford" (e.g. [2]). Is there a way to amend the script so it clarifies, when posting messages on behalf of editors, that the tool is posting the message "on behalf of" and that the editor did not personally compose the message him/herself? Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, and Chetsford:-- Done.∯WBGconverse 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

63. Capacity to handle 2nd+ AfD nominations

IMPLEMENTED
See associated phab task and confirmation --DannyS712 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T169441

Currently, when a page is nominated for AfD using the curation toolbar and there exists a previous nomination, the result is a minor trainwreck - see e.g. my last instance. Such nominations have to carried out manually. Some functionality to detect previous nominations, increment the count, and handle the paperwork would be very welcome. (I'm getting the impression that some articles remain un-nominated because people don't want to tangle with the manual process, which seems counterproductive). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This is a pretty major failing of the PC tools, a deficiency that I have not noticed occurring with twinkle (just another reason to use twinkle for all deletions, (in addition to the lack of ability to have a userspace CSD log. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not a 'major' problem, and in any case,only admins can do deletions. BTW, this is not a RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

64. CSD/PRODs: update userspace logs

Continue discussion at #55 above
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207237

While Twinkle keeps a userspace log of these forms of deletion nomination, the page curation toolbar does not. To maintain interoperability with twinkle, it probably should read the relevant section of twinkleoptions.js, if it exists. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I noted this above, but it maintains a system log twice for deletion tags. Here is your page curation log and your deletion tag log. Not picking on this request in particular, because I get it is popular, but more making the point I just made at meta that we should try to keep this page to a list of priorities so the WMF knows where to start. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This has a section above at Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#55._Ability_to_log_CSD_taggings_to_their_CSD_logs. PROD logs would be good too. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

65. Reviewer No Decision

Done

As someone who tends to hang-out more in the oldest view of NPP, it would be helpful if reviewers had a way, like on the Article Talk page, to indicate that they had undertaken a review of a page but did not reach a decision with the option to include a message about why. If several reviewers all start looking at an article and move on that says something (what it says would depend on circumstances) vs if a reviewer happens to be the first person to actually examine an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, you can do this already. You can use any of the features in the Curation tool without obligation to send a message to the user. You can send a message to the user and tag for any issues, and if you still prefer a second set of reviewer eyes on it, just click 'unreview'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I likely didn't make myself clear. What I want to do is have a way to signal to other NPRs that I put forward some effort in reviewing a page and ultimately decided not to either confirm it nor propose some sort of deletion. Given the backlog it would be useful to know that 5 reviewers before me thought it should probably be AfD but decided not to. Or that I'm the first one to consider an article that is 4 months old. Basically some low effort way to help communicate amongst reviewers about a particular article needing review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207452
@Barkeep49: A 'Reviewer notes' system could be VERY useful. What I envision: Reviewers could write a comment in a field in the Page Curation toolbar, which would then copy this note to the talk page and create a section with a unique header "New page reviewers' comments" (or similar). The page curation tool would scan for a section with this exact header whenever the page was loaded up and automatically notify future reviewers that another reviewer left a comment, this ensures that whenever another reviewer looks at the page, they immediately know that someone else already left a note on the talk page. While the talk page can currently be used in this manner in the same way, reviewers won't always check this for new articles, as there are rarely content comments on new articles. Reviewers could then comment via the talk page directly (under the same header). I think this would be a useful feature. I would change the NPP flowchart, adding a bit saying that if at any point you are unsure and decide to stop the review, you should leave a note using this system with your findings so far. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Yes I think this is an elegant way to implement this and obviously also lets other interested editors comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: - this would be a good idea, either in a notes taking form or just a tag on the curation system that would give it a different colour if 3+ reviewers marked it as such. The category would include a few areas - from the edge cases where deciding is tricky to the hyper-technical ones that I've started into before deciding I'm not qualified to judge. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thanks. I am excited that Insertcleverphrasehere's clever implenetation of this has gotten a fair amount of support as we discuss a possible wishlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

66. N articles deleted (of which Z via SD) out of M created

Generating a SD% is too troublesome.Not worth it.

As a reviewer I think adding this query would be welcomed by many reviewers: a way to show the number of deleted articles right in the Page Curation tool (e.g. Created by Username (talk | contribs) · XXX edits since dd Month year) - N articles deleted (of which Z via SD) out of M created. This would be useful in cases (and there are many) when a user keeps creating pages without reading the basic policies and on his talk page we see that most of the newly created articles were sd. We'd have a percentage of the editor's sd page percentage. And, seeing a notice in this regard would be some sort of heads up for the reviewer, although sometimes other editors may of been improved the article and obviously we need to take a closer look. Robertgombos (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

67. [Bug] Cleanup tag preventing marking incorrectly

I cannot replicate either.Was a local bug or was fixed at some point.

Not sure if this is the correct spot, let me know if I need to post it somewhere else

If you tick the box to tag a page with the Cleanup tag, then uncheck the box and attempt to submit the other tags, the curation tool will inform you that you must add a description to the cleanup tag before submitting it. You can work around this by ticking and unticking the cleanup tag again, but it would still be nice to get this bug fixed.

Xevus11 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this error currently. Perhaps this was fixed at some point. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

68. Requesting revision deletion

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207450

Adding functionality to the Page Curation tools to allow a reviewer to easily request Revision Deletion is essential. Currently the only options that it gives is to drop a generic {{non-free}} template, or else CSD nomination. There aren't any good tools for requesting Revdel either. I would envision something along the lines of pulling up a scroll-able list of revisions, and the user simply selection ranges to be tagged for Revdel. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Support Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Support — Yep, this would make a lot easier to request cv-revdel. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: At the very least it would be helpful to simply dump the empty template on the page via a tag. I've noticed that even if you don't fill in the Diffs, if it is simple most admins can figure out which revisions need to go relatively quickly. Thanks for helping out with these tasks. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:-) This can be sought as an edit-request but to avoid any messes, I have asked for permission to try the integration at Beta-cluster. ∯WBGconverse 05:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Tweaked a bit and this is the new diff:-)∯WBGconverse 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

69. Passive aggressive messaging system

On-wiki templates amended
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T204464

Remove the "Thanks for creating XXXXXX, Author!" from the message template, or at least get rid of the exclamation point. If I want to send negative feedback, especially to say that the page is inappropriate and unsuited for Wikipedia, it comes off as extremely passive-aggressive. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, tweak-able to your wishes:-) ∯WBGconverse 20:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done∯WBGconverse 06:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
(for the record) fixes are at {{Taggednonote-NPF}} & {{Reviewednote-NPF}}. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

70. Curation toolbar opt-out or opt-in in preferences

Worked upon by Miller.Xao has already provided a nice solution.

The page curation toolbar has now been enabled by default for every page you open from the special:newpagesfeed. Not all of us want this though (at least I don't): I do new page patrolling, but don't need or want the curation toolbar, and it is rather intrusive. Having to minimize and remove it on every page is tiresome. Can we please have an option in preferences to opt-in or opt-out of this toolbar? Fram (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Gadgets should be configurable via the preferences window. The WMF may have considered that no one with the NPR right would not want to use their tools, but other tools exist for the same functions, and we should be able to opt out. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Fram, this can be easily executed through a css tweak:-- #mwe-pt-toolbar{display: none !important;} which renders it hidden as well as removes it from the flow of the webpages. ∯WBGconverse 19:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: How would each user implement this? by adding this to their .js page? I'm unfamiliar with how css works, sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Xaosflux already created a gadget for this (accessible in preferences, the last gadget in the list at the moment). Fram (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

84. 'Potential Issues' flagged in Page Curation Toolbar Page Info flyout

Fixed
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207847

As far as I can see, the page curation tool is supposed to flag 'potential issues' in the 'Page info' section of the toolbar (or at least this is what was intended when it was being made [3]). This info is currently visible from the NewPagesFeed, but not from the toolbar. This functionality seems to be nonexistent and was either never implemented properly, or has become bugged and broken. It should contain things like 'Blocked user', 'Orphaned', 'No categories', as well as the ORES stuff that has been added recently: 'Possible Vandalism', 'Possible Spam', 'Possible attack page', and 'Possible Copyvio' which is currently being added to New Pages Feed (this last one should also have a link to the Copyvios report).

When a page has issues it should be flagged with a red number on the Page Info Icon as shown in the mockups at the link above. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes please. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Never implemented, AFAIR. ∯WBGconverse 20:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I have done some development work on this. It seems that the 'Potential Issues' flyout was broken around September 2015 in a coding style update. If everything goes well, we should be getting back the old functionality in the next MediaWiki update (or the one after that). Best,  << FR (mobileUndo) 14:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

86. Page Curation toolbar: do not mark pages as 'reviewed' when adding CSD and PROD tags

Done
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T208685

Per this discussion, we have decided that it is best to not mark pages as 'reviewed' when adding CSD and PROD tags to articles (due to the ease at which articles can fall through the cracks if these tags are removed and the reviewer doesn't notice).

The Page Curation toolbar currently automatically marks pages as 'reviewed' when adding CSD tags and PROD tags, this should change and simply leave the page unreviewed after the page is tagged for deletion (that way it will fall back into 'unreviewed' pages if the CSD tag is removed inappropriately or if the PROD is removed).

88. Add Tags and hatnotes

NOT A PRIORITY
The page curation system edits via custom API that only allows for prepending and appending content, and thus isn't responsive to tags already on the page in terms of placement. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doesn't the Add Tags feature recognise hatnotes and place the tags below them, per WP:MOSLAYOUT? I noticed this from this edit. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently, tagging is done via a wrapper api that only accepts as parameters what tags to prepend and what to append (and others not relevant here) - this would require reworking the api to parse the current text and place them accordingly DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

89. A Curation tool message that's using a non-existant template

Resolved

This is maybe already fixed, but it appears CurationTool is trying to subst Template:Sentnote-NPF instead of Template:Reviewednote-NPF, see this example or this which shows a handful of instances. Can this sentnote template redirect to reviewednote or are they supposed to include different text? --148.63.157.82 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Template:Sentnote-NPF as a redirect. I have no idea what's causing this, but there are about 15 instances of Page Curation trying to use this template, all from today. – bradv🍁 02:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

93. Have page curation be less hard coded and more controllable by Wikipedia

Right now a lot of things are hard coded into page curation. Given that the WMF has said that they will not devote regular resources to page curation and that instead we need to go through the wishlist, it seems to me that moving as much control as possible to the encyclopedia through templates, would be desirable. IN this way even if the WMF cannot devote resources those volunteers who wish to do so could continue to adapt and change the page curation tool. For instance, the length of time that it takes for a redirect or article to be indexed could be controlled via template rather than be hard coded into the curation tool. There are probably other such things. If/when the WMF extends the curation tool to other wikipedias this sort of local control would only become more important - for instance they might not have the same content tag concerns as us and so there wouldn't be a desire for every tag we have, but on the other hand they might have other warnings that we don't have which they would like to be able to tag on articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The way PageTriage code-base is written, it's sheer impossible to incorporate a wiki-agnostic mode. Same for most other stuff. Sans a complete overhaul, not possible, I dare say. ∯WBGconverse 09:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article patrol status after refund/undelete

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T311347

Per the discussion, when an article is undeleted per WP:REFUND, it should always be back in the queue. MB 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll support that. I'm surprised it's not a;ready done. I guess I kinda took it for granted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Archive_2&oldid=1097574473"