@Novem Linguae, thinking about when we get NoIndex extended, that is going to generate more questions at the Help Desk and other places asking "why can't I find my article with google?" I made that proposal at NPR/R to add a Maint Tag to noindexed articles, and then there was a suggestion to do something less obtrusive like on the German site. I asked at VPT (here) if anyone knew anything about that, but the thread was archived with no response. There have been other threads about coordinates not displaying properly on certain skins, so I'm wondering if anything like that might be more trouble than it is worth. Any ideas on where to turn? I could just repost at VPT as that is the most techy place we have. If you don't remember this, this is a German with the "Nicht gesichtet" message in the upper right. MB 04:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workaround: I created a user script that displays article review status. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/ReviewStatus.

I think manually tagging tens of thousands of articles with a new maintenance tag... has some challenges, both for consensus and for technical implementation. Would probably need a bot to place them upon article creation, and then PageTriage and Twinkle to remove them upon getting marked as reviewed. Or would need to add something to MediaWiki:common.js, but that would cost an extra API query for every mainspace page. I'm a bit hesitant about this proposal.

The German icon appears to be coming from mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs, which is a little different from PageTriage's "mark as reviewed" system. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @MB and Novem Linguae: Has the NOINDEX project fizzled out? Is it now at stalemate? It may not be realised by everyone here, but 'NoIndex - Indefinite' was an original feature of the Page Curation development process in 2012. IMO this therefore doesn't even need debating. It just needs implementing. The people working at, or in charge of Phab may not have been around at the time. Why do the devs have to play God and invent policy just to wangle out of things they are not interested in doing? Their salaries come from our unpaid work... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's stuck in code review. The following feedback was given that I need to find the time and brainpower to address. Unfortunately I am busy at my day job for another few weeks so it will be hard to prioritize this. However there were around 4 other feedbacks which were easier and which I already addressed: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage/+/815835 "I think I found a loophole in this logic. Say the age is at 90 days, and the other variable is indefinite. Now if I have an unreviewed article that's 100 days old, wouldn't adding actually remove the noindex property from that article? To fix this I think the logic needs to be fixed so that there's one variable for all unreviewed articles and a second variable for all other articles. -Majavah" The good news though is, the vibe I am getting is that once I fix this, everything will probably proceed smoothly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update NL. I guess that's kind of good news, but I still think that having to do the WMF's work for free is totally unacceptable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: One signatory is indeffed for CIR. Should that signature be removed or allowed to stand? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been removing other blocked users. This was a block for multiple accounts, but I see no evidence of that and there is denial in an unanswered appeal. I think we should leave this one for now, but remove it later if the block is still in place when we send the letter. The announcement in the Admin newsletter was a few days ago, as in the SP. Signatures have slowed to a trickle, so it is probably time to end the signature phase. MB 16:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: The announcement on the Admin Newsletter probably brought about the sudden flurry of signatures from 6 admins. Some people get round to reading The Signpost quite late and I think there is a good chance of reaching 500. Which means the distribution campaign could start before the end of the month with publication in the next issue of The Signpost being one of the venues as well as the direct mailing and other WMF project pages. By then, also the results of the BoT election will have been made and the fundraising probably let loose on unsuspecting donors. If Legotkm and Mike Peel are successful, the encyclopedias will have two board members concerned with the WMF providing more technical support to the communities. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have NPP consensus to do this. Where do we go from here? Do we need propose this at WP:VPR? It would affect 10,000 articles, but that is only 0.15%.

There are technical details to work out also. The first mock-up is using {{ombox}} which is not supposed to be for articles. The second box is with {{ambox}} which IS for articles. With the existing parameters, I made a similar version, that can be left aligned and doesn't have the yellow border. It does have a fat bar on the left that is supposed to match the "type" (blue for info). I got rid of the blue in the third example (by setting the "type" to "protection"). I think I would like to have it without the left bar. There is a {{Asbox}} for the stub tags at the bottom of articles, so there is a precedent for a special-type box on articles. Maybe a special {{Npbox}} just for this?

Then there is the matter of what adds and removes it. I was assuming we would need a bot to take care of that, but NL thinks he can patch the Page Triage code? I'll let you take the lead on that. MB 04:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like NOINDEX, this is likely to be another tough one, both from the consensus side and the implementation side. Sadly I am busy with my day job for another month or two so I won't be able to take the lead on this one or do any difficult programming work in general. My recommended ideal implementation would be to have PageTriage display the banner, since we could do this with 0 SQL queries and 0 edits.

A bot would also work, but then we add 2 edits to every unreviewed page, possibly more if there is a BLAR-style edit war. A bot algorithm could be done two ways: 1) do a daily cron job that gets a list of all unreviewed mainspace pages (using an SQL query on the pagetriage_pages table), then check each page's wikicode for the presence of the template, and add if needed, or 2) try to listen to the new pages feed using the API for this (I know it exists but I have no experience with it).

For consensus, perhaps we should proceed the same way we did with NOINDEX, and place a {{subst:Please see|}} at one or more village pumps. This would keep the discussion centralized on the NPPR talk page.

Maybe we should use our current discussion to hammer out which template is the most supported, and then run a second survey (probably tagged RFC) that just has two options: the best banner from the first survey, or status quo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally supportive of this idea but we're talking about adding a prominent new template to every single new article; that absolutely won't happen as a result of local consensus at WP:NPR, there needs to be a WP:CENT-advertised RfC somewhere central like WP:VPR. I'd get the technical details hammered out first, too. People hate vague proposals. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, if the WMF were to do what they are supposed to do, here wouldn't be any need for this banner at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about NOINDEX, I think a major reason "the WMF" is (rightfully) leery about doing it is precisely because there wasn't a clear consensus in such a widely-seen discussion. I tried to point this out several times, but at times NPP seems almost afraid of checking whether the wider community agrees with it. But NPP isn't the only part of the project with a stake in article creation and WT:NPR is never going to be somewhere where you can get project-wide changes implemented. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting observation Joe but it's not the reason and I for one can't think of any viable objections anyway to extending NOINDEX and/or adding this proposed mini banner to new articles; regular article creators are not affected by it and their submissions are usually quickly processed. NPP is the only firewall against inappropriate content and new creators have a right to be informed (and educated) why their articles are not promptly reviewed. Only those who actually review new articles are aware of the serious issues that are at stake and which affect their work.

It doesn't matter how 'leery' the WMF is, it's not their call and they are not even aware of what life is like here in the trenches. Like on the German Wiki it's a no-brainer and a local requirement and the devs are paid to respond to the communities' requirements for keeping the Foundation's cherished projects clean. Like many requests at Phab, it's something that we could go ahead and fix ourselves if we knew how. The only problem is that it needs something tweaking in the MediaWiki software. The Foundation is currently resisting all and any requests to improve the NPP system that is already unable to meet the new challenges of the NewPagesFeed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more idea. We could also skip the message and add an icon to the top right. There is sample on this page now (not the icon we would actually use). It is even less obtrusive than any banner, probably too much so. Those icons are not displayed in mobile view, so a lot of readers would entirely miss it. We have clear support of NPP for a small, relatively "unobtrusive", banner notice. We could offer an icon as an alternative in a formal RFC if the larger community doesn't agree with the banner.

(unsigned by MB 02:49, September 12, 2022‎ )

• IMO, Any of the above small banner examples would be fine. Until the WMF understands the need for NOINDEX to be extended, something like this needs to be done and it needs to be sufficiently visible as a warning to readers that what they are about to read may not be accurate or neutral. An almost invisible icon is not worth the stress of working out the technicalities and running the whole thing through a site-wide RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the "Top Icon" does not actually have to be an icon. I have added a more visible "Not Reviewed" message (the icon is still there too but the final could be just words or could combine the two). This is more like the German WP version. There is no "learn more" link as there is in the banner, but hovering on the icon takes you to the help page. The biggest problem is still that this won't show on mobile view. MB 15:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody, MB? make that list of NPR rights holders who have not yet signed the petition. I would naturally have done it myself but I'm not a software engineer and I don't know how to do it and I'm not ashamed to admit it - I'm a pre-SQL and Regex generation and such stuff was never my line of study. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung, NL did it and sent it to you via email days ago. MB 05:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: never received. Checked junk, spam, trash, on my computers, and all mails and trash on my server. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I just resent it, you should have it. MB 06:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, nothing received. Please check your mail. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quarry:query/67299 has all patrollers who have neither their user page nor user talk page linked from the petition. There's some alt accounts on there (User:DGGnyc jumped out at me, for example), and if any signatories have neither their user nor talk page directly linked, they'll show up on the list too. —Cryptic 15:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic the email finally got through, so new we have two lists. Thanks. MB 01:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cryptic and Novem Linguae: and anyone else who provided the list. It was a very useful and revealing exercise but my original intention for it is probably not such a good idea after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update on NOINDEX. I'm currently busy with my day job for a month or two so will be able to do very little programming work. NOINDEX is currently held up by a patch I need to make some changes to, https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage/+/815835. Some of the initial objections in the Phab ticket were withdrawn or resolved, so after I make the changes, it is likely to proceed. It's at the top of my list of patches to work on, since it seems to be something that NPPs really want, and the queue is way over 90 days right now so unreviewed articles are getting indexed. I saw a really terrible article the other day that was indexed... was talking about ejaculation and masturbation and stuff. Would be great to keep that kind of thing out of mainspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is to insist that the active reviewers all review from the back of the queue for a while. That's all we a can do. Launching yet yet another backlog drive for barnstars will just annoy people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, this was the latest thread on NOINDEX before you revived the earlier one. As this is expected to happen when NL can get to it and get the necessary reviews, I have been working on the related parts. You and I have drafted Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Unreviewed_article_help. Unless you plan to do more on that, I will ask on the discussion page for other NPPers to take a look now. Also, did you notice the big red "Not Reviewed" message at the top of this page? I think that is similar to the German notice - its about the same size. We can accomplish that with {{Top icon}}, unless someone has a technical objection to "misusing" that template for something that is not really an icon. I think that is a viable option, in addition to the banner. MB 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, yes, I saw that thing in the top right hand corner. It will go ignored by most people. It's not evident that a mouseover will produce a popup with more info. I mentioned elsewhere that the proper mini banner (there are three versions of it somewhere) is the way to go if people want to know why their article has still not been reviewed. I will continue going through the Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Unreviewed_article_help, I had nearly finished but the Open Letter action is more urgent right now and there are only 24 hours in my day despite my time zone! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB, Novem Linguae, Buidhe, Zippybonzo, and MPGuy2824: I'm really not sure that yet another backlog drive so close on the heels of the last one is a good idea - it remains to be seen. IMO the reviewers will by now be fed up of constantly being told to do more and we know already that generally they don't, at least not the 600 inactive ones. IMO It will not only dilute the the importance of such drives and reduce their impact, but also the value of barnstars. NPP has to start looking outside the box for solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When's the next backlog drive scheduled? Was there a consensus for it or was it an executive decision? If the latter, perhaps starting a thread at WT:NPPR asking if NPPs want another backlog drive would help gauge the appetite for it. Personally I am pro backlog drive, but we should also try to address Kudpung's legitimate concern. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, there was some discussion two weeks ago at the newsletter TP if you missed that. The drive is October, a mass message went out ~ eight hours ago and 40 people have signed up. It looks like appetite to me. MB 04:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB, 40 people signing up in 8 hours is definitely adequate for determining consensus. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]