Archives |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
Threads older than 50 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
This Article needs to be removed.
I have moved the text from this section to Talk:Gamergate controversy#Call for deletion posted accidentally on a different talk page. I think that is where it was intended to be placed. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Yaris678 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Changes awaiting review counter.
I'm looking for a way of putting something on my page to see when there are outstanding changes for review. If pending changes was a category something like {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Special:PendingChanges}} Edits Need [[Special:PendingChanges|Reviewing]]! would work. However it's not. Is there any way of getting either a count or a yes/no from the special:PendingChanges page to see when changes are outstanding?SPACKlick (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What to do if there are several pending changes.
I have reviewer powers. If I come across an article with one pending change, I know what to do. But if there are several, and I want to accept some and reject some, which end should I start at? The answer seems obvious - start with the oldest, otherwise some of the pending edits might not make sense. But I think that when I tried that, it said something like "You are about to accept all 8 outstanding edits, ok?" Maproom (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you go to the page history, view the diff's of each user (which could be multiple edits) separately, and accept/reject them separately. And yes, start with the oldest. Gap9551 (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Telling the reviewer why the article is protected
Is there any way to signify to the reviewer why the protection is in place, when they're reviewing an edit? The Jon Gaunt article is pp1-protected because of IP editors repeatedly adding a running joke that the obscure right-wing British radio pundit starred in the American sitcom Diff'rent Strokes. The last two such edits have been waved through by editors who presumably just saw a "TV show added to list" edit regarding somebody they'd never heard of and took it in good faith.
I assume there are other articles which have been pp1-protected for similar vandalism which would seem innocuous to a reviewer unfamiliar with the subject. Is it possible (or worth implementing a way) to include a short "this article is protected because..." sentence where the reviewer can see it, when asking them if they want to approve an edit? Or should articles just go under regular protection when the nature of the vandalism wouldn't be clear to every reviewer? --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- You can expand the "show pending changes protection log" link that is to the right of the accept/reject buttons. I actually came here to suggest that the reason be shown by default, but given the amount of unanswered questions on this page it doesn't appear as if anyone is actually watching it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Policy question
First, I'm not clear if this discussion should be here or at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing. So if I'm in the wrong place, please move or tell me to re-ask there.
Anyway, I just accepted a group of three pending changes at Stephenie Meyer, (three the edits made 24 November, between 20:43 and 20:44). The first two were obvious vandalism by an IP user (67.80.62.61), and the third was another IP user (73.159.24.89) reverting the (pending) vandalism. So after my accept, the article was in the state it was before all three edits. Now the same result would have been had by reverting them (via the PC interface). So what was the appropriate action? Accept? Revert? Something else? Doesn't matter? Rwessel (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- I would say does not matter. I guess it would even technically not possible to revert the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Namespaces
On WP:PC, there's a statement, "It was determined by consensus that pending changes could only be used on articles. ..." In the most recent discussion of PC1 implementation that I can find, however—Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3—the closer concluded, "There was very strong consensus to enable the use of Pending Changes throughout all namespaces." I've glanced through the archives of this talk page and can't find any consensus that PC should be used only in mainspace. Can anyone clarify this apparent contradiction? Deor (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)