This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you didn't notice or have been living under a rock, there is a 5000 article backlog and 5000 redirect backlog, making 10000 total pages, if all 717 reviewers and 3 admins patrolled around 14 pages/redirects , poof, backlog is gone. I recommend using the {{NPP dashboard}} template as it provides useful backlog information. Make it happen NPP! Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Zippybonzo Is there a way to send an updated newsletter to everyone on the list to remind them about the backlog and encourage them to review at least 2 articles a day for the next three days? Or some other combination, as long as it feels realistic. I worry that 14 is a high number, especially considering how many reviewers are inactive. Ppt91talk19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ppt91, do you mean a bit like the request for letter signatures? If so, I'm happy to send an MMS should consensus be in favour of it. @Illusion Flame, @Novem Linguae, Courtesy pings seen as you have some involvement in the newsletter/announcements/backlogs. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Zippybonzo Thanks for your speedy reply! I will rely on your knowledge in terms of the system itself, but that sounds quite good to me. Basically, any kind of direct "nudge" to encourage collaborative approach would be great. Ppt91talk19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Illusion Flame You weren't around when that message was sent, but basically it was an impromptu newsletter telling people to sign a letter to the WMF. Look in the newsletter archives if you want to know more. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Zippybonzo. Thanks for the ping. Yeah we should consider a special MMS (non-newsletter) just to let folks know about the rising backlog. There appear to be some folks that took a break after the last backlog drive because the backlog was low, but would be willing to resume NPP now that the backlog is high. We just need to inform them. We're discussing this a bit at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Special MMS message to alert NPPs to the growing backlog? if you or others would like to chime in. If you want you can draft something up, similar to this or this, but please wait for approval before sending. Thanks a lot. โNovem Linguae (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this should probably be done with at least a decent bit of human input. If a 5 section article has one source to cite one sentence and one source that cites the entire rest of the article, I don't think the concerns of {{one source}} have been addressed, and the wording is This article relies largely or entirely on a single source (emphasis mine). Skarmory(talk โขcontribs)04:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you proposing to do this only for new pages, DreamRimmer? Otherwise, I don't think this is the right place to discuss this. โโฏJoe (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
But there's still a huge backlog. Maybe it's time to arrange some kind of contest. I must say I keep coming across older articles which have never been reviewed.--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
It's likely too soon to do so, at least in my opinion as the last three backlog drives have all surpassed 10,000 total actions (reviews / draftifications / deletion discussions or tags). I think it'd be best to wait until we're closing in on 10,000 unreviewed articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I hope we don't have to have a backlog drive at all. If we can get the day-to-day reviewing rate back to where it was before June, we can keep the backlog down. โโฏJoe (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Making redirect autopatrol less bureaucratic
There's consensus to implement Frostly's changes. This was done in this edit on June 30, 2023 by Frostly. Rosguill's suggestion that requests be left open for 24 hours, and the suggestion that applicants have 100 minimum redirects, were also added. โNovem Linguae (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2023 (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.
Hi! I think that the second and third paragrpahs of the redirect autopatrol guidelines is overly bureaucratic, considering that requesting normal autopatrol itself doesn't even have any similar requirements. The guidelines also don't reflect the current de facto status; the vast majority of requests are granted without 3 NPPs endorsing. I propose that:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed. Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights.
Closed requests will be archived to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list/Old requests after a minimum of three calendar days following the close of the discussion.
be changed to:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
Administrators will consider endorsement from new page reviewers as part of their decision on whether to add a contributor to the list.
There's no need to mention archives as it's already included in the box on the right.
This seems like a reasonable adjustment, although leaving permissions requests open for a few days is typically a best practice IMO. signed, Rosguilltalk00:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
+1. Might be a good spot to mention that a typical successful applicant has at least 100 mostly unproblematic redirects. โNovem Linguae (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Good change. I'm the most active nominator and it's rare to have any endorsements because most people don't follow the request page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
IIRC, the requirements were originally written this way because at the time of proposing the creation of the pseudoperm, I was not yet an admin and in discussions it seemed that most of the admins involved would rather defer to my or other NPP reviewers' expertise with redirects. Between me getting the mop and the broadening of editors' familiarity with redirect review work, that original reasoning is moot. signed, Rosguilltalk00:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Also brings it into line with regular perms, which just require one admin to sign off on it. โโฏJoe (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Support in principle but I would recommend having the second sentence read "Administrators will consider endorsements and concerns from new page reviewers..." to emphasize that NPRs can still comment for reasons other than to endorse a candidate. (The "s" after "endorsement" in original is purely for grammar's sake.)
As an NPR, I frequently endorse RAL requests, but I have recently expressed justified reservation to a request, so I think that NPRs should still be able to express some concerns about requests. Silcox (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2023 (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.
Query
I have recently received NPP rights. As a newcomer, I have a query. If I, as an NPP reviewer, suggest a CSD nomination for an article and it is declined, am I permitted to nominate it for AfD, or should I leave and let another NPP editor to handle it? RPSkokie (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Congrats on receiving NPP rights. I'm assuming that you are referring to Emirates Development Bank. CSD G11 has been declined, so AfD is permitted. Because that PROD would probably be pointless as the article creator will revert anyway, and that you already attempted draftification as an ATD but the creator moved it back to mainspace (and will likely continue this if it is draftified again), overall in my opinion AfD would be a good option. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)09:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely. The CSD deletion process is essentially for the most obvious of cases and is usually only reviewed by a single person (an admin). PROD could be the next step, but that's for deletions you would expect no one to contest. If there's a chance that somebody will contest the deletion for any reason whatsoever, you typically don't add a PROD tag. AFD is then the next logical step and final avenue for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
We now have a prototype of the mobile experience ready and we need some help.
Specifically, we need help identifying aspects of the experience that might need to be fixed and/or improved before being enabled in production as a beta feature at en.wiki.
I'm going to add instructions for trying and sharing feedback about the mobile prototype for below.
Of course, if you find anything about the instructions below confusing/unclear, please comment here so that I can try to help. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
While we are interested in any and all feedback, below are a few prompts that might be helpful to keep in mind as you're tapping through the experience and sharing what you noticed in the process...
What did you find unexpected about the prototype?
What do you like about the prototype?
What do you wish was different about the prototype?
I like your video demo. Nice work. Couple of questions. 1) How is this implemented? Did you make a new extension? 2) Any plans to add this to desktop's visual editor in the future? 3) Under what circumstances will the citation alert be activated? I don't imagine experienced editors need to see this. So maybe non-extendedconfirmed? Thanks. โNovem Linguae (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you for taking a look so promptly, @Novem Linguae. Responses to the questions you raised below...
1) How is this implemented? Did you make a new extension?
2) Any plans to add this to desktop's visual editor in the future?
Yes! In fact, I expect us to have a prototype for the desktop experience to share before next week is over.
3) Under what circumstances will the citation alert be activated? I don't imagine experienced editors need to see this. So maybe non-extendedconfirmed?
It seems (?) like there are two questions at play here:
1. "For whom should Edit Check be made available?"
2. "What conditions must an individual edit "meet" in order for this "reference check" to become activated?"
RE "1.", we're not quite sure yet...what do you think? Meta: I'm glad you asked this question. You doing so was the prompt I needed to create T340704.
RE "2.", this "check", as currently implemented, will get activated when an edit involves someone adding:
A minimum of one new paragraph of text is added to the article someone is editing
The "new paragraph(s) of text" someone has added does NOT include a reference
The changes described in "1." and "2." are happening on a page within the main namespace (NS:0)
Right now, I believe this is implemented within the VisualEditor extension. Although, @ESanders (WMF) is best equipped to answer this question.
I've never seen this. I'm pretty good at citing my sources, though, so it could be I've never run into the situation. (I imagine most experienced editors cite their sources without even thinking.) Skarmory(talk โขcontribs)04:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
hi @Skarmory โ thank you for taking a look at the prototype!
I've never seen this. I'm pretty good at citing my sources, though, so it could be I've never run into the situation.
To clarify, the experience I shared above is not yet available in production. Thus, why you have not yet encountered it :)
With the above said, even when Edit Check is first made available, I think it'd be unlikely for you, a person who's made ~10,000 edits, to see it. Reason being: to start, we're thinking Edit Check will be enabled for people who are new and relatively inexperienced with editing Wikipedia.
You saying, I imagine most experienced editors cite their sources without even thinking. leads me to think this thinking aligns with what you expect. Although, if this is not the case, I'd value knowing!
Talk about the Edit Check prototype @Novem Linguae, @Skarmory and I started talking about above. Specifically, what you all think might need to be added, removed, and/or changed before the feature is offered to people in production.
Brainstorm ideas for additional "edit checks" we ought to consider building in the future.
Experienced reviewers, how often do you use prod vs AFD? Like what percent of your patrols? Also, are there certain types of articles / certain topics where prod should be skipped because they are often de-prodded? Thanks. โNovem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I've almost entirely stopped using PROD, only using it for cases where the article obviously has no merit and where the initial editor obviously will not be returning to improve and/or defend the article (although as someone that focuses on back of the queue, there may be a bias there as anything that would be a good fit for uncontroversial should either be gone or else have a pre-existing redirect that makes for a better ATD). signed, Rosguilltalk15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I forget the extent to which we recommend it as a best practice, but I find that tagging with {{notability}} and then waiting a week, then proceeding to AfD (or BLAR if appropriate) if there's no significant improvement (or leaving it to another reviewer) to be a very good approach for back-of-the-queue work, as it is a clear, gradual warning for any editor invested in the article. I remember when I first started reviewing articles I would end up on the receiving end of tantrums by editors who perceived a PROD, and particularly a PROD followed by an AfD after dePROD, to be harassment and a tendentious attempt to remove their edits without proper oversight. I can't remember the last time I've been in such a situation since adopting the tag-before-nomination approach. signed, Rosguilltalk17:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I donโt use PROD much at AfD because the creator almost always just reverts it so might as well go straight to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that is the explanation. Reviewers draftify an article that would otherwise be a candidate for PROD. I don't remember when I last used PROD. Now that the draftify script has been been improved, it covers almost anything that PROD covers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The one niche I can think of that is maybe still better-suited for PROD is for clearly-unsatisfactory disambiguation pages, since editors are generally less defensive when those get nominated for deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk00:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I mostly agree with what has been said so far; on a related note, I do think there's a place for BLPPROD, at least in part because it doesn't allow page creators to simply revert the proposal without providing a reliable source. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed about BLPPROD. AFD and PROD are about notability, and BLPPROD is about sources, so I see this discussion about AFD/PROD not applying to BLPPROD. โNovem Linguae (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I used PROD a bunch of times a couple of weeks ago, deleting some very dodgy UAE article choices that had been made by a blocked editor. if the page creator wasn't allowed to dispute a PROD, I suspect it would be a great deal more useful. But I also suspect it would be viewed as unfair in some way. It's Mostly Harmless, as Douglas Adams would say... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This is something I'm sure I used to know, but what is the different between the reviews on the page curation log and the patrol log? I get that the former only covers actions done via the using the Page Curation toolbar at least. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Patrol versus review โ There is a difference between an article being marked as patrolled (which uses the patrol log) and marked as reviewed (which uses the page curation log). Clicking [Mark this page as patrolled], which appears in the bottom right corner of some pages, makes an entry in the patrol log only. Clicking the green check mark in your toolbar always creates an entry in the page curation log, and often creates an entry in the patrol log, but not always. Most people use the "mark as reviewed" button, so most people should be checking the page curation log exclusively. You can apply the "Reviewing" log filter if needed, which will filter out non-reviewing from the page curation log. The patrol log should usually be ignored. [Mark this page as patrolled] appears when the Page Curation toolbar is closed (see next bullet), and in namespaces where PageTriage doesn't operate (for example, draftspace and template space).
Novem Linguae thank you! That was exactly what I was looking for. It's odd to me when sometimes happens "often", "but not always" - but the answer to that seems to be ignoring the patrol log rather than looking into it further. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
In an ideal world, marking as reviewed would always write to both logs, but I think there is a complicated bug in PageTriage somewhere that would take a lot of effort to pin down. Maybe in the future though :) โNovem Linguae (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
NPP school teachers needed
Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for WP:NPPSCHOOL? It appears all the folks listed on the NPP school page have no slots available or are inactive. I heard a story today of someone who wanted to do NPP school not being able to find a teacher. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. โNovem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think I might be able to assist here (I was 62 this year and the time I can spend staring at a screen reviewing is much less nowadays if I want to preserve my eyesight for the next 62! - but assisting someone along the way would keep me right up to date as well as hopefully adding new enthusiastic reviewers to our roster) Best wishes Josey WalesParley18:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
As part of their work on PageTriage, the WMF's Moderator Tools team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. This week they upgraded the code that powers Special:NewPagesFeed. We've decided to do a beta test before we swap in the new code. Please consider helping us out by using this special link instead of Special:NewPagesFeed. The special link will allow you to access the beta test. Please post here about any bugs that you find, visual changes that you don't like, or any other feedback. Thank you very much for assisting with this. โNovem Linguae (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have recently been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (earlier today). However, when I click "Review" from the New Pages Feed, the Curation toolbar does not appear. I have looked through the tutorial information and tried searching previous talk page messages but didn't see anything about this (though ADHD makes it difficult to sift through large amounts of information sometimes). Is the missing toolbar an error that needs to be resolved, or is it due to my new status (and thus, will resolve itself)? Significa liberdade (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Have you tried re-opening the page curation, sometimes it gets turned off in error by users - see pic To explain to someone how to re-open page curation on en-wiki - hope that helps you and congratulations on joing the crew! Josey WalesParley22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm.. I don't have that link listed on there on my tools. After changing some scripts, I added it to the top toolbar next to Sandbox. I've opened and closed the page, refreshed my cache, updated my browser, tried a different browser... all to no avail. Thanks for the help! Significa liberdade (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello NPP, I was wondering whether there is consensus for a combined backlog drive (both redirects and articles), as our backlog is massively growing, with over 13000 total pages. Me and some others from the discord server/cabal (circle preferred name) have proposed October, though other months are welcome. Courtesy pings for @Buidhe and @Illusion Flame as backlog drive coordinators, and @Tol as our technical/bot person, and @Novem Linguae as lead coordinator. Comments and suggestions welcome, this is just to determine rough consensus. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible timeframe to me (assuming something doesn't happen in the meantime that drastically brings down the numbers). -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This is being asked weekly at this point. We don't need to plan it months in advanced, just give notice a month ahead of time and do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the rush to plan this so far in advance is about. We don't know what the backlog will look like that far far away and a month ahead of a time would have been plenty of time. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Noticing the growing backlog, is there somewhere also a chart of the average of reviews the reviewers made for each week? I wonder if the growth is due to our inactivity or the rise of created articles in need of a review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
What would be nice to see is the trend over time of reviews done vs pages created. Could then almost create an "efficiency" metric. Just knowing the backlog trend and current numbers of reviews doesn't really answer Paradise Chronicle's query. Also to consider on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#/media/File:NPP_unreviewed_article_statistics_as_of_July_19,_2023.svg when a mass message goes out, to see the impact (e.g. the "New pages patrol needs your help!" message on 1st July flattened it for a bit). Maybe the rate has slowed after that, but getting into thinking about differentiation of the curve for the rate of change might be overkill. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That would be ideal. Summary chart don't really show any kind of useful information. We need better analytics. Something that alerts when its starts to drift. I see some of the most active reviewers from last year are not even on the summary charts but a lot of new reviewer's have arrived which is really good, indicative of a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. Personally, I've not done anything for months and months, but could do with a sprint as I suspect by August it will be around 9000 and 12000 by years end. scope_creepTalk10:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I had a couple of questions regarding NPP and how it operates (disclaimer: I very recently got the right temporarily, so I'm brand new to it). First, does NPP include AfC? Or is it completely separate? I was exclusively looking at that section thinking that it counts (I've been slightly active there since I got the patroller right), but I wanted some confirmation on it.
Second, Are NPP users able to review their own articles? Or is it exclusively for users who have Autopatrolled rights? As I'm writing this message, I have nine pages in NPP so I thought it would be a good idea to clear them from the backlog. If not, would any patrollers be willing to review my articles? Please let me know.
Again, I'm completely new to the process so just giving a heads up. I'll ask more questions as needed. Thanks in advance for a response. Losipov (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
NPP is separate from AfC. At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened.
At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened. This happened. I wrote the code for it :) So any NPP can now go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> tick Just Another Articles for Creation Helper Script -> Save, then use that to review AFC drafts. It's a different reviewing tool and a different log entry than NPP, although the criteria are similar.
I do have a question. Does Andrew Lucky Elerewe passes our GNG criteria. I tagged this for notability; but the author removed it and added some more sources. But still I don't see any reasonable sources for a GNG pass. I'm under one month trial on NPP. Before going for another AFD nomination, I considered getting a second opinion on this. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I've not looked properly at all, but at a glance I did wonder if could pass on WP:NACADEMIC#3, but I'm not convinced, as Institute of Project Managers and Institute of Management Consultants aren't "scholarly" in my mind. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I actually had another question. I was looking at the page List of UK Singles Chart year-end top 100 singles of 2022, which is orphaned and unreferenced, and was considering moving it to the draftspace. However, I don't see the common text that says to the effect of "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace". In the toolbar, would an option for it be there or do I need to manually type it out? Thanks for this and for your other reply. Losipov (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a general question. On newly created articles, I'm used to seeing a link at the bottom of the page that says something about whether or not the article has been reviewed. But I just came across Mike Robinson (Environmentalist) which was just moved from Draft space and I don't see that it has been reviewed and that review link isn't present. Does this happen when articles are moved from Draft space to main space? Thanks for any answer you can provide. LizRead!Talk!00:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I personally have the Page Curation bar that pops up on new articles and it's currently showing that the page has not yet been marked as reviewed. Pages moved from draft to main space are not automatically marked as reviewed unless the move is performed by a user that has the autopatrolled rights. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
NPP school
Hello everyone, I was wondering how long it takes to be part of the new page reviewer school? I was given an invitation on Saturday morning and I had a read of the tutorial, it is quite a long read but I got the gist of what the role entails. It suggested to go to the NPP school and I'm thinking attending, I meet the guidelines for this and I am keen to give it a go. Thanks, SarahTHunter (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Based on the apparent lack of available teachers I opted to request the right after spending a few days reviewing the tutorial. I'm not convinced it will be granted, but if the school opens up again I'd be willing to attend. ~TPW16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, I would be available, if you could set me up with the more info mentioned above, my time zone is Irish Summer Time (UTC+1), I'm usually at work 8:30 to mid afternoon on weekdays and have 2 demanding springer spaniels to walk when I get home so later evening 8-11 my time is best time to get me. Best wishes Josey WalesParley21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Time zone is eastern. I do have discord, and nearly deleted it today out of disuse! I'll try to remember how to find the details for you to contact me that way. ~TPW13:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll definitely sort that, since I expect that if I'm approved that this will become the bulk of my editing. ~TPW15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Great, Sarah is set to go with me from Saturday - Best wishes to both students and Zippy as a fellow new tutor! and thanks Novum for getting all talking to each other Josey WalesParley15:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Advice On Previously Deleted Page, Question on Involvement in Draft
Hi there,
The article Hori7on remains unreviewed, and it showed that it was previously deleted before. However, the cite highlighter script shows that a majority of the sources used are good. I'm conflicted on how to best approach it. I was leaning towards marking it reviewed, but since I'm new to it, I thought I would ask more experienced reviewers on this.
Also, regarding AfC: I saw a draft article that seemed decent, but realized I made some edits to that page before (they were not fairly major, just things like changing the short description). Would that be improper to review that article given I made previous edits there? or is this fine?
CiteHighlighter just checks reliability. Make sure you check the other components of GNG too (significant coverage, secondary, independent). Green sources with the band's name in the title are likely to have sigcov, but I'd spot check anyway until you find 3. You should always check sources for GNG: don't just assume.
All 3 previous deletions are "deleted to make way for move". Nothing to worry about. Hypothetically, if the previous deletions had been AFDs instead, you could tag it {{Db-g4}} to get an admin to check it against the deleted revisions and see if it's a copy that would qualify for G4.
There's no rules about being WP:INVOLVED for AFC or NPP reviewing. Feel free to review anything you've touched.
If I come across an article at NPP feed and make some minor edits, such as adding an infobox or tagging it to request more citations, am I required to mark the page as reviewed? RPSkokie (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
No, you are not obliged to mark any page as reviewed, even if you have done some changes like those above. If in any doubt always leave it in the queue (someone with knowledge in whatever field the article is in will come along eventually Josey WalesParley22:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with using compatibly licensed material verbatim, provided that the tone and sourcing is appropriate. Tone is not exactly a concern with a table. However, I think the article should be redirected/merged to Coagulation#List_of_coagulation_factors, which contains largely the same information. Spicy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone! For context: The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used, which was not opposed by any editors in the discussion above.
In my opinion (and experience), there really is no place for PROD in NPP. Per WP:PROD, proposing an article for deletion is only appropriate if no opposition to the deletion is expected; thatโs not really a reasonable assumption for newly created pages. If an editor just recently put in the work to create an article (or publish it to the main namespace from their drafts), it is by no means reasonable to assume that they would not object to deletion. Accordingly, the PROD deletion mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with NPP, with only rare and narrow exceptions (such as old articles that have been added to the queue again for technical reasons). The documentation should reflect this; PROD should not be part of standard NPP workflows, and only described here as an outcome for the very rare cases where it may apply. Iโd like to hear as much input as possible on this. What does everyone think? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit: BLPPROD is of course a different matter. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I've had PRODed a new article and had it deleted one time. I think the factor at play was that I explained my reason and the article creator didn't object to it (they thanked me). AfD is an expensive process, and we should use cheaper ones if they work. Maybe I've had an experience that few others have had. I agree BLPPROD needs to stay, and I have a question about "The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used". Which one now mentions that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thatโs not an experience Iโve had, interesting to hear from you on that. Re the flowchart, itโs File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, which is currently used next to the other flowcharts in the tutorial. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact ones but there are several where I gave a quite long explanation of the relevant policies and explained that I had searched for additional sources without success and then the editor allowed the article to be deleted by prod, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
PROD is a major tool I use for patrolling bad DAB pages (though I usually work from the {{One other topic}} backlogs). If there's nowhere else in NPP it has a role, it has one there. People don't usually care about their DAB pages getting deleted in my experience. Skarmory(talk โขcontribs)03:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I think PROD is entirely compatible with NPP in its current state.
Consider that, when sorting the new page feed to only include articles created between 6/1 and 6/7, it shows 527 pages (as of now). Even slashing 200 arbitrarily to account for some being in the queue for technical reasons, that's still 327 pages that are ~60 days old (or less) that still need an NPPer to take action for a single week. I'd say articles within that age range, presuming they meet the PROD criteria, are good candidates for PROD rather than sending to AfD or BLARing.
While the tool is "new page reviewer", considering our backlog at any given time and the lack of experienced enough NPPers to tackle it head-on instead of focusing on what they know, we can more accurately be called "created article reviewers".
I missed the topic regarding the new flow chart (though that's on me), buuut my 2 cents would be to rephrase "don't use PROD. someone will remove it" to something like "reserve PROD for articles older than 14 days without any edits for about the same time period." Regardless of the flow chart, I think taking steps to remove mention of PROD throughout NPP documentation would be unconstructive. โSirdog(talk) 04:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I think discouraging new NPPs from using it via our documentation, but not prohibiting it, is a good strategy. Since some folks clearly still find it useful. Kind of a "soft" deprecation. โNovem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (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.
Could be an editathon. Are the articles in mainspace non-notable/problematic? Raja Hassan Khan Khanzada has more edits than the rest of the accounts, so could try leaving them a user talk message asking for an explanation. โNovem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Novem; if the articles themselves are good or passable, this is most likely just a coordinated effort to improve coverage of a certain topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@DreamRimmer, Novem Linguae, and Actualcpscm: I have blocked the above listed named accounts (among others) as socks of the Koli sockmaster(s) discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala who have been active for years and have created hundreds of socks. Note that many of the IPs are already range blocked from mainspace etc; hence the tactic of creating articles in draft space and then using named accounts to move them to mainspace. Will be G5ing the eligible creations. NPPers are requested to be on the lookout for more such accounts/creations. See also WP:GSCASTE and feel free to request article/creation protection as needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (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.
Where to put Analysis of References table
Sometimes I encounter a new article which looks questionable as to notability, and think that it should be taken to AFD. I begin reviewing the references and developing a table listing which of the references are Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary. Then I conclude that the table shows that the article does satisfy the standards for general notability (or another notability guideline that is related to GNG). My question is: What should I do with the table analyzing the sources? I started the table with the intention to use it in an AFD, but I will not be writing an AFD if the table indicates that the article passes notability. Work has been done that should not be discarded. The one option that comes to my mind is to put the table on the talk page of the article. Does anyone have another thought?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Talk page of article. Zero harm in posting it there and it could save others the effort later on. Something like new page analysis as the section title and state at the conclusion of the post it's being marked as reviewed. I think that makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New flowchart
I made a new flowchart and added it to WP:NPP today. The flow is almost identical to the flow of the really detailed flowchart, except I reduced the amount of detail, put copyvio check before CSD, added several "draftify" cases, and recommended against PROD. Feel free to call out anything you think could use improvement. Thanks. โNovem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
CSD, AFD, and maintenance tags are built into PageTriage/the Page Curation toolbar. I'll go ahead and add "use: PageTriage" in the next version. โNovem Linguae (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Very detailed; this will certainly be helpful! I would recommend adding a note to give a grace period before CSD (10โ15 minutes) or draftify (1 hour) except for blatant G3, G10, and G12. Although perhaps not strictly codified in policy, I believe it is WP:BITEy behavior to tag for A7 (for instance) one minute after a page is created, so it ought to be discouraged. Complex/Rational18:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a real improvement for most people over the more detailed flow chart we have now. The big thing that jumps out to me is a lack of BLP mention, including when to BLPPROD. I am also a bit wary of embedding specific tools into the flowchart which may cause it to become outdated more quickly than the more generalized "what to do". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this feedback. BLPPROD is mentioned under the draftify bubble, bullet #2, so should be all set there. It is quite rare so I don't think it needs its own bubble or anything. Adding more BLP stuff to the flowchart is controversial and some folks might object, for example, User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 19#NPP flowchart (ICPH's response to bullet #7). Hope this helps. โNovem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
In thinking about that bubble more carefully, I think putting Draftify before notability encourages, even more than we do already, editors to draftify rather than nominate for deletion. I don't think that would be well received by the broader community. And I would suggest BLPPROD is more at home in the "CSD" tab than the Draftify tab - like many CSD BLPPROD makes no notability assessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I decided to take the "borderline notability" bullet out of the reasons to draftify. While that bullet was meant to cover valid cases such as WP:TOOSOON (films, events) or promising articles where the NPP can't find enough sources but maybe the article author could if given a chance to add them, I don't want to risk it being interpreted as "draftify everything instead of using AFD".
With that bullet gone, all of the reasons to draftify are now non-notability related, so I think it probably makes sense to keep it before notability. Hopefully that solves some of the concerns. โNovem Linguae (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
BLAR is an alternative to draftification or AFD that can be considered in more cases than are listed there. I think that a flowchart for only mandatory steps, not optional ones, would be more helpful. (t ยท c) buidhe21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Looks like some nice work! It's always good to have as many ways of presenting the workflow as possible, as different approaches work best for different people. This version addresses some comments that have come my way over the years from people that didn't like my flowchart. I think for me I still like the traditional flowchart design as it lets me ignore certain criteria when I go down a certain flow line, but I'm glad that this exists! Well done. โ Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here)19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
One question though. Why copyvio before CSD? A lot of CSD criteria are instant delete (even if most of them rarely come up nowadays after ACTRIAL), which is why I put them first in my version, since a hate page or contextless page (for example) negates the reason for a copyvios check. I don't think it really matters, as most of these CSD criteria are a lot less common than it was in the old days when I first wrote the flowchart, and when they do come up people will just skip straight to CSD anyway. Just wondering what the rationale was, since you mentioned it specifically in your first post? โ Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here)19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: I'm not sure about describing the first group as "required" โ it smells of instruction creep. The other steps were grouped under "optional" on WP:NPP fairly recently (a good idea), but that does not imply that everything else is mandatory. For me only the first two boxes (CSD/copyvio), plus checking for BLP violations, are really required, in the sense that if you don't do them there's not really any point in reviewing. The rest should be approached flexibly based on the size of the backlog, nature of the topic, general state of the article, etc.
Also: we have three flow charts on WP:NPP now... can we at least get it down to two, if not one?
Not sure if this is the right place to pose this concern, but I seem to have somehow lost access to the page patrol toolbar. I haven't been actively working on NPP the past few days, but I was looking over some new pages from Women in Red. I noticed the toolbar wasn't there but figured they page must be older or something. However, it appears to just be gone altogether.
I don't know if it's related, but I'm also getting the following pop-up error on some pages: "AFCH error: user not listed
AFCH could not be loaded because "Significa liberdade" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, you will need to manually remove it from your common.js or your skin.jspage. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!"
Significa liberdade, you were only granted the new pape reviewer right for a month, so now that it's expired, you'll have to go back to WP:PERM/NPP and get it renewed on a permanent basis. As for the other error message, if you want to review drafts that are in the articles for creation queue, you'll need to put in a request at WT:AFC/Pโthis is a separate permission, although it'd very likely be given to you if you asked for it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, @Extraordinary Writ. I wasn't sure if the two issue were related, so I figured it was worthwhile mentioning both. Also, I know it's not up to you or anything, but users should receive some sort of notification that their "trial period" is over. That would help with a lot of confusion! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Once you get the NPP perm, you are also considered to be an AFC reviewer. So there's no need to ask for the latter separately. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
New anti-vandalism tool starting development at the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi - as you may know Iโm the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage (final update to be posted soon!), my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, weโve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. Weโll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a truly bizarre request, but can someone mark Fireaway as unreviewed? It was initially created as a redirect by myself from a Afc/rc request, but the requesting IP immediately expanded it into an article which could use further review. I mark it as unreviewed myself since I'm the page creator, and the page curation toolbar thus doesn't appear for me. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
When redirects get flipped to articles, they will automatically be put back into the queue. Looks like that's what happened here. Should be all set :) โNovem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
It's not that an admin can't grant permissions outside of requests at WP:PERM, it's that an admin doesn't really have a reason to grant NPR to someone if they haven't expressed interest in it. That's a situation though where I think it makes sense to grant a user the permission outside of the request process and I'm glad Extraordinary Writ has taken care of it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2023 (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.
Hello, I want to see if you agree with my frustrations and think this new page reviewer is playing out-of-bounds. It's regarding the article Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio. I am not sure if I can opt-out of my articles being reviewed, but here I am as a veteran article creator being checked. The point is, Scope Creep calls my references "unintelligence to the average reader", "I can't make head nor tail of them", and "They don't resolve to anything", and that "They are non-RS". The user is threatening to draftify the article if these are not fixed within a week.
They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. That isn't a non-RS. NewsBank has refused my request to create URLs friendly to any reader worldwide, and I am still in the process of creating articles, passing through afterward with better citation formats. I think it's out-of-line for this reviewer to tag-bomb the article, recognize its experienced creator, and threaten draftification, all without first giving a common-courtesy request first, and without even stating these moves are 'part of their article reviewer duties'. Instead, it just comes off as another random attack against the work. As mentioned on their talk page, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. ษฑ(talk)14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You can't both play the "I'm an experienced editor part" on one hand, and use bare urls which point to a login page on the other hand. Giving you a week before draftification is already a courtesy not extended to most editors. Fram (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, I start articles and then clean them up. The fire stations article has enough non-NewsBank sources to pass GNG anyhow. What I am highly advising is for cases like this, where a reviewer recognizes an experienced editor, don't piss them off with tag-bombing and a threat. If Scope Creep were to simply ask for more attention to the page, I'd happily oblige. And if they were to mention their role as a reviewer up-front, I'd again feel better than simply feeling the target of a drive-by complaint and threat. ษฑ(talk)14:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding tags is a way of asking for more attention to the page, many days after you created it. You can still format the refs as news sources even if a login is needed. Thatโs dead easy to do, so please consider that for future articles. Mccapra (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I never said it's not a way, it's just not a very nice way, when combined with a threat. A talk page comment is easier, less confrontational/aggressive, and is more likely to be successful. ษฑ(talk)15:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be autopatrolled, so I think your articles are already marked as reviewed by default, skipping the queue. This may make Scope creep's actions (concerns about your reference style, plans to draftify) that of a regular editor rather than of an NPP in this situation. You can still ask our opinion here and we're happy to give it, but just want to point that out. Are there any diffs where the two of you have spoken onwiki, besides your message on Scope creep's user talk? Such diffs could provide useful background. Thanks. โNovem Linguae (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Novem Linguae:. I forgot the extent of the problems. 8 months ago, after I was siding keep on some deletion discussions against their votes or nominations, I then witnessed that user unreviewfourteen articles I had written, which had already been reviewed. Targeting my work just to attack me. I am not sure what resolution came of that, beside that their edits were reverted. ษฑ(talk)15:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This plays out to be the second abuse of reviewer rights in less than a year specifically against me. Scope Creep was warned not to abuse their rights last time. I think more serious actions need to be taken now. ษฑ(talk)15:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Scope creep. Please do yourself and the editing community a favor: develop your articles in a sandbox and then move them to main namespace when ready. This encyclopedia doesn't need under construction articles about non-notable subjects, even if you are a well-established editor. Your behavior in this regard is a discredit to your longevity. Chris Troutman (talk)15:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is always under construction. We can agree to disagree, however I am trying to ascertain if the other editor's actions were appropriate or considerate, not my own. ษฑ(talk)15:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Scope creep's point is that what is an NPP reviewer to do? You present a topic which doesn't seem notable. Scope creep can't just give you a pass because you're a 15 year editor. Personally, I subscribe to Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem, which is just an essay. I see no reason you can't take your time and complete articles before you make them live. The community has banned other editors for starting articles and never bringing them to fruition. Chris Troutman (talk)15:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you have sources for the "The community has banned other editors" bit? I highly, highly doubt that, unless other problems were at play. And again, reviewers ought to be up-front that they're acting as a reviewer, and it's clear this user was fully aware of it being a contentious issue, but consciously chose to go the attack-route. That is a huge problem. ษฑ(talk)15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Also the "You present a topic which doesn't seem notable" bit is silly. There are many, many published and reliable books cited fully. One of these goes into deep detail about each station. ษฑ(talk)15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Um, sure dude, a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article. Lol, what planet are we living on? (It's actually the main criterion for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN (which are the same guideline...)) ษฑ(talk)15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
And again, like I said "unless other problems were at play". Accusations of racism and bigotry are "other problems". There were probably likely others. I'm not diving into this one random instance. ษฑ(talk)15:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but bare URLs are pretty easy to fix; it seems odd to purposefully publish them and come back later when you could have just formatted them properly in one big edit. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]22:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We had the same conversation about the same issue, several months ago and I got the same amount of hassle and aggro then removing maintainance templates when the article(s) hadn't been fixed, although at the time the article was finally fixed with a lot of aggro. You can't have a non-standard reference format that cant be understand by the reader and have value, make the whole reference effectively useless. I suspect your heading for admin, in a week or so. scope_creepTalk15:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If you're consciously aware that tag-bombing and threats lead to frustration and aggravation, why do you keep using that tactic on me even presently? Again, simply asking nicely will get you so much further, and could've avoided my frustrations and this entire discussion. And I am not sure what you mean by "heading for admin", what does that mean. ษฑ(talk)15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Because I expect as an established editor for you to follow process like everybody else. Here is one of the articles I unreviewed some months agi, the Lazarus House article, still with non-standard references that nobody can use and still not fixed. I asked nicely the last time and you told me to "fuck off". I tend to ask for your autopatrolled to get removed. scope_creepTalk15:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You didn't ask nicely, you tag-bombed and unreviewed fourteen articles, in a breach of process that multiple people condemned. That's why I'm telling you to back off. This isn't an issue with my works, it's an issue with me keep-voting against you on some of Another Believer's restaurant articles. ษฑ(talk)15:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to. Unfortunately Scope Creep refuses to, and has re-tag-bombed Lazarus House as having "unreliable references". The Columbus Dispatch, as hosted on NewsBank, is indisputably a reliable reference, and thus Scope Creep is indisputably in-the-wrong with that tag. And just doing it to get at me again. ษฑ(talk)15:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The "unreliable sources" tag says "some" references and "may", not "all are". "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable." We are not supposed to try to decipher your attempts at referencing to find out what it is you may be hiding in there. Fram (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't have to decipher. I already told Scope Creep what the URLs are, months ago, and they were fully aware by the time they re-initiated their attacks; as well you can read that it's NewsBank.com. I don't think if I cited a JSTOR.com URL, anyone would have a problem? Again, this is just simply another attack at me, completely illegitimate and not made in good faith. ษฑ(talk)16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
"a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article." Which book? I can't find it in the article, but the dreadful refs make looking for it rather hard. Fram (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Throckmorton Jr., Robert, ed. (1976). Columbus, Ohio Division of Fire: 1822-1976. Columbus, Ohio Division of Fire Historical Committee, Walsworth Publishing Company. OCLC 2809386 ษฑ(talk)16:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
A 2022 edition was just published as well, and there are numerous other sources throughout the years that have covered every station in existence at the time. ษฑ(talk)16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
That's as far as I can see a book published by the Fire Department, so not an independent source, and thus not an indicator of notability. While I think notability is a side issue here, but again it is an example of you being very dismissive and superior-acting about all concerns, even though you don't display the actual policy knowledge or editing skills one would expect from your self-description. Please consider that you may be at least partially wrong here and that the concerns of Scope Creep (and many others by now) are not caused by some personal animosity, but by actual issues with your articles. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
And now you're attacking my editing skills? What skills do you think I lack? I have GAs and FAs, and now I'm unskilled? Hurtful and random personal attacks like these are why I am starting to think I should contribute less here. ษฑ(talk)16:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
No, but the book is published by the Fire Department, and printed by Walsworth. It's not even listed as such in the book, hence the square brackets at OCLC and the missing name at Google. So not an independent book, and thus not an indicator of notability. Fram (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
No, that's wrong, and I don't get where you're making up this idea from. Walsworth is the publisher, it's listed that way in the book and in OCLC. Stop making up things just to attack the reputability of the article? What goal do you have? Just to frustrate me more? ษฑ(talk)16:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
OCLC is located in the Columbus metropolitan area, so they're not an independent source. Should I add them to WP:RS/P? They cannot reliably give data on Columbus books and materials. ษฑ(talk)17:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Apart from you just being ridiculous here; this side discussion isn't even about reliability, but about independence: "So not an independent book, and thus not an indicator of notability." I have made no claims at all about the reliability of this book. Fram (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. You're being ridiculous as well. We can agree to disagree. You clearly think it's made up that Walsworth Publishing Company is the listed publisher. OK sure believe a fantasy. You've been blocked before for being belligerent. Why do you continue down this rabbit-hole of attacks against me and the article, when I was trying to address one specific user's conduct? ษฑ(talk)17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
"You've been blocked before for being belligerent." That's news to me. You were trying to address the conduct of one editor, but it turned out that the issues that editor had with your articles were justified, and your reaction to them not. Others listed similar issues here, and it seems that you are not even willing to agree that a book about the Columbus Fire Department, by the Columbus Fire Department, is the poster child of a non-independent source and thus doesn't show any notability for the subject. Fram (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, if you discount an independent publisher, fine. And yes, I can see the swarms of editors instead opting to attack my works. I don't get it. Sure there's real issues, but when I ask for pie, I don't expect to get an essay about cake. As for 'justified', I disagree. The only admin to comment here found them to be unjustified. ษฑ(talk)17:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
"The only admin to comment here found them to be unjustified."? I must have missed that, what comment would that be? Neither Novem Lingua nor Rosguill seems to have stated anything resembling that. Fram (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Brackets just means that the information isn't listed on the title page, which is the proper location to put it (for instance, they could be listed in the colophon, or else inferred from information not in the printed work but available elsewhere). signed, Rosguilltalk17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. This was published in the 1970s by a small publisher; it doesn't even have a proper title page or copyright page. It's instead all in an acknowledgements page. What does anyone expect? ษฑ(talk)17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Break
I am unsure why I am again the victim of a random attack from a new-page reviewer, out-of-process. As Novem Linguae stated, I am autopatrolled. And though, sure, my references aren't great, I don't understand why most every editor here is focusing and picking on my honest shortcomings, and not on this second aggressive attack on an article that clearly wasn't even in the new page feed. I would like these aggressions to stop, it's incredibly stressful, and incredibly uncalled-for. ษฑ(talk)16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
You should have your autopatrolled revoked because you are creating articles that are not problem free and your comments above indicates lacking understanding of notability and references, combined with an unwillingness to learn and change your behavior... (t ยท c) buidhe17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sure, again attack me and say how I lack understanding of basic Wikipedia tenets, when I've also crafted many Good Articles and Featured Articles, which are among the top 1% in quality we have here, and are pretty near perfect works. And I never said anything about being unwilling (for one thing, I've actually begun filling in the refs). Please don't make up things to attack me with. Again this is overall just another baseless attack on my reputation here. What about this harasser? ษฑ(talk)17:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
ALL: I'm going to archive this thread. This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. I reached out describing what comes off to me as a hurtful attack, and instead of any slight degree of compassion or righting wrongs, everyone instead proceeds to over-examine my editing style, call my work "dreadful", "ridiculous", with a "lack of understanding", "dismissive", "superior-acting", "unwillingness", and more. I was very open to the fact that my ref work is substandard, but I do have a proven track record of going back to fix them, and especially when asked. If nobody likes my work here, I can just stop contributing. Your loss. ษฑ(talk)18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. It really isn't. And archiving it would halt an in-progress discussion, which would probably be perceived a trying to avoid scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I've opened a thread at WP:ANI if anybody wants to comment. This is the second time in 14 months that the editor has been asked to fix this problem and he seems unwilling to take the problem onboard and that combined with the egregious behaviour of removing templates, when there is a clear problem and not doing anything to fix the articles in question, is enough for an WP:ANI report. I've asked for their autopatrolled permission to be removed, so NPP reviewers can examine the work. The other articles, some of them in very bad condition, will need will need to be looked at. I would draftify the lot as they are no use for the average reader who is looking for references. They are self-defeating. scope_creepTalk00:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
โฑฎ, I would highly recommend in the future that you start out articles in draftspace/user sandbox, and then move to mainspace once it is ready, rather than creating it directly in main. I've found that quite useful and it allows me to take my time with writing prose and sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
โฑฎ, IMO an article should establish compliance with wp:not and wp:notability (including relevant references in a form that others can verify) and be coherent (even if just a stub) within dozens of minutes of being placed in mainspace. I tend to do it in draft space until it reaches that point and then develop everything else in mainspace after that which IMHO is OK.
The things that you describe (other than marking pages as unreviewed in 2022) is Fram acting as an editor rather than as a NPP'er. Might still be good to talk about here but that should be noted. On marking as unreviewed, that simply means that another set of eyes will have a look at it....not exactly a fate worse than death. I'm a NPP'er and any article I create needs to get reviewed by another NPP'er which is fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2023 (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.
FYI the RfC on moving a selection of Lugnuts' cricketer microstubs to 5-year draftspace has reopened
There are a lot of editors watching this noticeboard who care about notability and work in article creation and deletion, for starters. (t ยท c) buidhe19:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with this notification. A major notability/draftification RFC is good for NPPs to know about, so we can stay abreast with current consensus. โNovem Linguae (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible bug in the curation tool when you RfD a redirect
If you use the curation tool to RfD a redirect, it seems to produce this bug seen in this diff, where instead of it placing the current redirect's target page link, it just places this text: [[:{{{target}}}]]. This seems like a bug to me.
But also, I donโt like how the RfD tool works with the curation tool; how the edit summaries and messages to the creator use the word โdeletionโ rather than โdiscussionโ. As for this particular example/diff, I personally proposed โdisambiguationโ rather than โdeletionโ which makes it confusing for other editors. I'll be sticking with Twinkle to RfD redirects I think for the foreseeable future. Fork99 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this a while ago, as well as the bug where if you add an rcat to a redirect and there's an existing rcat shell, then the tool adds a new shell beneath the pre-exitsing one. I'm sticking with Twinkle wherever I can. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]22:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning, I'll bump up the priority of the rcat bug a bit. The idea is to make PageTriage a one stop shop so folks don't have to use Twinkle. So please keep reminding us about any bugs that "bug" ya (har har) and we'll try to give them some attention. โNovem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft tag removed with no improvement made to article
Hello, I'd moved the article "Another Yeti Love Story" to draft after the New page review [4], mainly because I didn't think the sources used were valid, but others could possibly exist. I found one that might have worked, based on the list here [5]. The page creator(?, not sure) has removed the tags for draft and put the article back in mainspace without improvement... What do I do now? I didn't want to PROD it, as it seems borderline between deletion and draft. Do I add the draft tags again, or do we go to AfD? Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:DRAFTOBJECT means that draftspace is optional. Since an editor has objected, next step would probably be AFD.
Is your concern that the sources are not GNG quality, or that the sources are unreliable? Upon quick inspection, most of the sources look reliable to me, except #3 and maybe #1. Others should feel free to chime in in case I'm wrong. โNovem Linguae (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you. I'll think a bit before my next steps; my concern was that the reviews in particular were on non-RS websites, but I'll probably leave it for another reviewer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
It's borderline, and gnarly, but would likely survive AfD. I took the liberty of tagging it as a mess and marking it reviewed. I would personally dearly love us to have an alternative way of dealing with new articles of this poor quality, but believe I have followed the rules such as they are. I agree draftification was the best call - but we have WP:DRAFTOBJECT and I think I have followed the only course left us now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Oaktree b, I would also suggest AFD if you still believe it's non-notable and do not PROD or draft or blank-and-redirect again because that will certainly be reverted. I also agree with you that the sourcing are questionable.
Extended content
This book is reliable but a textbook trivial mention, whereas this is an obvious Wordpress blog per the bottom of the page that notes "Multipurpose News WordPress Theme 2023". The article also inaccurately claims that this is a "review" despite it being an announcement column, with statements including we have reason to believe our new film is poised to be a viral cult phenomenon across the world and, more questionably, Available on iTunes, Amazon On Demand, Google Play, Youtube, Vudu, Microsoft, Playstation, which causes me to question if it is independent. This only leaves one actual SIGCOV-meeting review from a source that Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Sources declares as reliable, despite it lacking basic editorial policies or indication of staff expertise. Unlike WP:A/S and WP:VG/RS, the horror sourcing list is almost entirely added by one editor without any clear discussion elsewhere that I can locate.
That said, I abstain from reviewing borderline cases and do not want to get into a long contentious discussion with this editor if I file an AfD, so will sit this one out. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
A few days ago, User:Yellowsnowman123 created some pages for the annual Filmfare Awards dedicated to the film crew in the Marathi language film industry. These pages don't seem to have any unique or noteworthy content. The main articles for these awards already exist. I'd appreciate your opinion on whether we should redirect, merge, or delete these newly created pages. Below is a list of the unreviewed new pages and the main pages for reference. Thanks!
I came across Unicode Versions, and was going to draftify it as lacking sources, but couldn't as an exact duplicate, Draft:Unicode Versions exists. That draft has been decline many times, for obvious reasons. I don't know why User:AshtonTameirao did this; I hope it isn't an attempt to circumvent the AfC process.
Anyways, I PRODed Unicode Versions, but then decided it wasn't fit for mainspace at all. Ideally, it would be speedydeleted, but it fit none of the criteria, so I moved it Draft:Unicode Versions (duplicate). So now there are two identical drafts, both of which should probably be rejected.
Because of WP:DRAFTOBJECT, when there is an identical article in both mainspace and draftspace, it is usually best to not draftify. The article can go through our normal deletion processes such as AFD, if appropriate. To deal with the duplicate article problem, you usually want to WP:HISTMERGE, or redirect the draft to the mainspace article. Hope this helps. โNovem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Where an article has been declined at AfC and then copied into mainspace, I normally change the article into a redirect to the draft and then tag it with WP:R2. --John B123 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This appears to go against WP:DRAFTOBJECT and could potentially start drama. I do not recommend this approach. Editors are allowed to move declined drafts out of draftspace. Draftspace is optional. โNovem Linguae (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Whatever you do in these situations is likely to cause drama. I don't see WP:DRAFTOBJECT is applicable here as the article is not being draftified. In any case WP:DRAFTOBJECT refers to articles moved to draft space not those created in draftspace as is the case here. Other admins don't seem to have had problems with this on several occasions in the past. --John B123 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Even if there isn't a WP:DRAFTOBJECT issue, changing a page to a redirect would never make it eligible for speedy deletion. "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." WP:CSD. If the article was already eligible for a different CSD, just tag it with that without a WP:BLAR. But if R2 is the only reason, it should be declined with a revert. SilverLocust๐ฌ23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note that the tutorial page is in the process of restructuring and simplification. If anyones has thoughts or disagreements on the changes made (I also made a few), thoughts and feedback are appreciated. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Bug in the tool
Recently, last months or so, I am receiving messages sent by the Page curation tool about "the article I created" or similar and then go to complain about the article. However, I didn't create the article. I created a redirect. A subsequent edit by another editor created the article. However, it seems the page curation tool simplistically blames the editor for the first entry in the History for "creating" the article, whether or not they did. Can the tool be made a bit smarter and contact the person who did create the article or ensure the people who are allowed to use the tool be educated to take responsibility for using the tool to contact the appropriate person. "Talking" to the wrong person isn't going to achieve anything very useful (just wastes their time trying to work out why they are being contacted) and possibly means that people that have should be advised instead (e.g. of deletion discussion) may not be advised as the relevant policies require. Thanks Kerry (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
As someone who has accidentally pinged you, @Kerry Raymond, first off, apologies. It sucks that you've had to deal with these unnecessary messages. It's happened to me, too. I will note that it may not necessarily be a "educate NPRs" issue (though I admit I don't always check who actually created the article). When using the Page Curation tool for deletion, we don't have a choice of who the message gets sent to (which someone should see if they can fix!). We could forgo using the tool, but that's more of a hassle since the tool automates many steps into a few clicks. I vote for finding a way to reduce these hiccups, though! Significa liberdade (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Non-NPRs signing up to the backlog drive?
I should probably post this at WT:NPPC but this page of course has more watchers. While signing up to the backlog drive I noticed an user signing up who is neither a NPR nor an admin. Should I boldly remove it or will NPP co-ordinators take care of these afterwards? Thanks. VickKiang(talk)23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
They're an experienced user, I think it would make more sense to ask them if they want +new page reviewer, which I've just done. โโฏJoe (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Talk page showing as not patrolled (new NPP member)
My watchlist is showing the "new page is not patrolled" red exclamation mark next to three recently created Talk pages (here, here, and here). In this case, I added the Talk pages (optional steps from NPP flowcharts) after marking the articles as reviewed. Did I get something out of sequence? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The exclamation mark that displays in a watchlist if something is not patrolled is technically different from marking something as reviewed in PageTriage. More details at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrol_versus_review. Long story short, we don't worry about patrolling non-mainspace pages, so I wouldn't worry about it. Hope this helps. Thanks for checking. โNovem Linguae (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Kj cheetham, that's precisely what I was wondering. All clear. (I have a few more questions on my NPP list that I'll try to put to words in the days ahead.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
A question came up recently where a page patroller left a message for an author suggesting that an article was overly-reliant on sources behind a paywall and suggesting that it would be good to find additional sources which were "more accessible". The article was accepted, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for a patroller to leave such a comment. I don't want to make a big deal of this, so I'll skip naming the specific article and patroller, but I'm interested in what NPP policy says about this. It seems to me that if the sources are high quality (and in this case, they were), that's all we require. Suggesting to an author that the sources were somehow sub-standard because they were behind a paywall seems out of scope for NPP and contrary to WP:PAYWALL. RoySmith(talk)15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. At the heart of patrolling is dedication to WP:V. Print books can often be had at a library. Online material behind a paywall is hard to verify and therefore asks for AGF. How many hoaxes were perpetrated because the article listed rare books and patrollers AGF'd? I don't AGF and neither should you. Paying for paywalled material is what WMF should be spending their money on. Chris Troutman (talk)18:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
It's reasonable for a reviewer to ask for an excerpt of a paywalled source to verify its contents, but that is not the same as saying articles shouldn't rely on paywalled sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
There may be specifics that would change my view, but in the general case I would discourage reviewers from making a comment like that. They could very reasonably ask if the article creator would email copies of some of the sources and/or add quotes to the citation templates. The folks at WP:Resource exchange would be glad to help out with NPP-related resource requests. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Was a Uw- template involved? If so, feel free to specify which one. Might need to rethink it or TFD it. You can view the source code of the user talk page and look for a comment such as <!--Template:Uw-paywalled-sources-discouraged --> to identify the template. โNovem Linguae (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Section on required attribution needed in reviewer instructions
I would like to request that a section be added to the reviewing instructions on the tutorial page to link and summarize Wikipedia's policy on required attribution when copying or translating articles within Wikipedia. The fact that this is missing, is allowing patrollers to approve new pages lacking required attribution, which should never have been approved, as they are in violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia's licensing requirement.
This came to my attention when I noticed {{Sentnote-NPF}} messages placed by NPP reviewers on the Talk pages of users who are creating new articles without the required attribution, for an article translated from a foreign Wikipedia, using messages like:
I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed.
For an article with translated (or copied) content that lacks required attribution, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia's licensing requirement, which is a policy with legal implications and can never be ignored, or overridden by consensus, and applies to all Wikipedias equally because it is part of Wikimedia's WP:Terms of use. There are a small group of editors who attempt to notify users about missing copy/translate attribution, and it's already hard enough to get editors to pay attention; when a user gets a glowing review on their UTP about their newly created article saying they "adhered to Wikipedia's policies", for an article where they ignored required attribution for the 17th time, it really undermines that effort.
I have in mind specific cases, such as one user who has three dozen newly created pages translated from Portuguese since the beginning of summer, with only one (non-compliant) attempt at translation attribution among them. There are about a dozen "sent you a note" templates from reviewers on this user's Talk page, of which about half mention article issues in need of attention, and the other half are either "Thank you!" messages, or they explicitly mention "adher[ing] to Wikipedia's policies". I'm not going to name either the users involved, or the reviewers who approved their edits because this isn't about pointing fingers at anyone. Also, there is good faith all around: the users are creating good articles, and the reviewers are doing what they think they're supposed to, based on the current reviewing guideline. Nevertheless, the required attribution is missing, and that has to stop. So, no names; rather, I'd like to concentrate on how we can mitigate the problem going forward. (If an admin or other editor with an interest in analyzing the scope of the problem needs specifics, they can email me privately.)
That's why I'm requesting that regulars here consider adding something to the reviewer guideline about checking for missing required attribution on articles with copied or translated content. You can get some ideas about how to approach it, by looking at how WP:AFC does it; see ยง Step 1: Quick-fail criteria at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Note, however, that their "Quick-fail criteria" don't even mention translated content (which they should), which has the identical requirements as copied content. I've been doing this kind of work for a long time, so if anyone wants to discuss basic "how-to", or practical tips (yes, you can patrol translations from languages you don't know), I'm happy to do so (perhaps better in a new section). Adding Diannaa. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Enthusiastically supporting this suggestion - this is not the first time this subject has been brought up, but previously it has been ignored. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
If I'm correct, the fact that attribution is required used to be in the NPP tutorial, but was removed during this bold edit to condense the section. While I agree with the condensing overall, I think reinstating the info from level 4 Wikimedia projects subsection under the level 3 Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO) version would be a good idea with some reformatting and fixes. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)07:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that helpful bit of sleuthing. While I'm a member neither of AFC nor NPP, I appreciate the efforts of volunteer editors in both projects, and I'm aware of the tension in having reviewing guidelines that are a labyrinth of complexity, versus something briefer so you can just get something done without being overwhelmed. So, I understand why condensing the guideline may have been carried out. As a non-regular here, I'll stay mostly on the sidelines and let the regulars decide on where and how to restore some verbiage. After that's done, I'm willing and able to discuss finer points of attribution and how to detect translations, if anyone is interested. Maybe that could make an interesting subtopic or subpage, if not here, then perhaps at AFC with a link from here. Thanks again, and I'll be lurking (subscribed). Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you're both right; I've added something on it back to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Duplicated content. I don't think you can count on NPPers spotting missing attribution every timeโour job is primarily to screen for the most serious content problems, things that qualify a page for deletion, and defer the rest to other processes (like copyvio patrols)โbut it's certainly something we should be on the lookout for.
On that note, NPPers shouldn't be telling creators that their articles adhere to Wikipedia's policies. It's misleading and potentially disruptive for other quality control efforts. Mathglot, if you want to send me the examples you saw privately, I can look into it. โโฏJoe (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:DRV
So I nominate a page for Speedy and an admin does the poof cloud of smoke thing and then I find out later that it's been subject to deletion review. Which is all good process and that (and I'm not complaining about the outcome or anything like that) - but I didn't get a notification it went to DRV and it does strike me today, perhaps I'm just in a different mood to usual, that the nominator of an article should get a say in the deletion review. Or am I just barking up the wrong drainpipe? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
A few borderline Tamil-language film-related articles
In the NPP film and television sorting lists, I came across two probably borderline Tamil-related articles both tagged regarding notability by different NPRs (Rishi Rithvik and Kalakka Povathu Yaaru), see my thoughts collapse below:
Extended content
All the refs for Rishi Rithvik I can find fails GNG/NBASIC except this possibly adequate source from The Hindu, though I can not determine due to its paywall. However, it might be arguably a weak passing of NACTOR (since two of the films listed in his filmography are main/starring roles that are possibly significant), and there might be more Tamil sources. The 2nd is Kalakka Povathu Yaaru, which was marked as reviewed recently but I am unsure why- the current single ref fails SIGCOV IMHO, and TOI is situational to unreliable reliability-wise (per RSP and these concerns). My search in English and a cursory Tamil search found more similar IMO inadequate TOI articles or more non-SIGCOV pieces, and short list of winners (i.e., 1) from unclearly reliable sites. But someone familiar with Tamil sources might have more luck.
I would appreciate in second opinions. Also, if any reviewers with Tamil language or sourcing expertise can have a look that would be great. VickKiang(talk)23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm reviewing two related articles from the New Page Feed (Georgia Institute of Technology - School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Georgia Tech Shenzhen), both of which have fairly high Earwig percentages (59.9% and 30.6% respectively). In this case, the text in question is mostly banal and generic (lists of names of buildings and their location, configuration, and function). My inclination is that this should be acceptable use as it would prove difficult to accurately describe these differently. Any guidance before I proceed would be welcome. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Another question regarding the same pair of articles: apart from two sources which I added to Georgia Tech Shenzhen, the sourcing is mostly from various pages on the University's own website. Would this merit a "Single source" tag in spite of the sources being from different pages on the same site? Also, am I correct in assuming that this is an these are articles we actually want (there is a cluster of related articles here, so I'm thinking that this gets a "yes" โ however I'd appreciate a more experienced reviewer's nod). I'm new to NPP and aiming to be precise, so please pardon my mundane questions. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Both of these pages have quite a bit of copyrighted text that needs cleaning up. While the Institute's website is a primary source, we do require independent secondary sources to meet the GNG criteria. Also, in my opinion, comparing notability to existing articles on the same subject or category isn't the best approach. ๐ณ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐02:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Taking a look at this oft-disputed draft, it does look like the page passes GNG with significant coverage. However the page is blocked from creation after an AFD in 2016. Can someone please review and verify if the page can be created, and if so remove the creation block? Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks and I'll remember for the future; always helpful for me to have a clear example like the task you created as reference as well. Skynxnex (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a good template for Phabricator bug reports if you want to bookmark it. I also think it's in the drop down menu to the left of your profile icon, in the top center of Phabricator. โNovem Linguae (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I do use twinkle a lot, but because I use the toolbar to review, I'm still in PageCuration mode when I mark it for deletion or tag it (except RfD, where it's so buggy I've trained myself to use twinkle). I guess I just need to always be in "Twinkle mode". Edward-Woodrow โข talk19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
The original vision of PageTriage is to make it a "one stop shop" for patrollers. Please keep reporting these bugs as you find them and we will slowly get them fixed. Someday soon, hopefully patrollers will not need to even think about using Twinkle. โNovem Linguae (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol newsletter
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
I should probably be reporting this at Phabricator, but I have no idea how to use it properly, so, until I do, here we are. The tool disobeys MOS:ORDER when adding deletion templates; in this edit, the tool added the template above the hatnote. Not major, but an annoyance that could use with a quick fix if possible. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to reply to what I thought was a very helpful reminder about the notability of WP:PROF and provide some more context for the humanities specifically. While I agree that h-index of twenty, as a very general guideline, is a useful metric for STEM academics, it is generally lower for the humanities. This is especially the case when one uses Scopus, where many non-STEM scholars have unusually low h-index counts (for example, Leo Steinberg and Linda Nochlin score 5 and 4 respectively). Looking at the citation count in Google Scholar can also be tricky, as humanities research is often simply not as robust, popular, and well-funded as science. It is not unusual for notable art historians, historians, literary scholars etc. to have a citation count for a single important source lower than 1000. Just something I wanted to point out. Ppt91talk20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say higher than 20 is still a valid rule of thumb for most non-STEM fields (and conversely, in high-citation fields like medicine or engineering, it's much higher). For very traditional humanities fields like art history, or for scholars from previous generations, perhaps not, but for the most part the social sciences, culture and regional studies, etc. have adopted a journal-based publication model and are better represented in databases like GScholar and Scopus these days.
The important thing to bear in mind is that this is all an extremely roundabout way to guess at potential notability: when it comes down to it, meeting the written criteria of WP:PROF or the WP:GNG is what counts. โโฏJoe (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
New report for unreviewed articles with a lot of pageviews
A quick reminder that {{one source}} (this article relies largely or entirely on a single source) is a cleanup tag for articles that cite just one source, and that's a problem. Quoting from the template documentation:
A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. [...] Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality.
If the cited source is reliable, fully verifies the content in the article, and does not raise any potential issues of neutral point of view, it's not a problem. This is often the case with stubs or short articles on uncontroversial topics. Since the purpose of citations is to allow readers to verify the contents of an article, asking creators to add redundant additional citations is not going to improve it, and in some cases might damage it (by obscuring the actual source of information).
I've been seeing too many reviewers mechanistically tagging all articles that cite one source with this lately, so I thought it was worth a general reminder. โโฏJoe (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hola. Tagging an article for unclear citation style, I find myself dumping a multiple issues tag on the page with the unclear citation repeated (this here is the result) twice. I thought it was finger trouble and redid it but sure enough, the tool is dumping the citation tag twice and creating a multiple issues tag. I think it might be a bug, Sherlock... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Slight update, the patch to fix this is merged, I'll schedule a deploy of the fix for Monday (which seems to be the earliest deployment window available) :( Until then please consider not using PageTriage to tag pages since the internal logic will always duplicate tags. Extremely sorry for this mess :( Sohom (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to get some input from others about how to handle pages created for upcoming major events, such as the 2022 Asian Games. In preparation for the Games, users created a lot of articles, such as Water polo at the 2022 Asian Games, that do not meet notability guidelines and are largely empty. Understandably, these articles have been draftified, redirected, etc. because it is too soon to create the article. However, non-NPP users keep undoing these redirects or circumventing AfC because, obviously, the event will be notable.
As a newer NPPer, I'd love to hear others' advice on how to handle situations like this. I completely understand the perspective of the users who are thinking, "This is important!" but again, it's not useful to have basically blank pages or pages with a bunch of empty tables. This is a perfect use of drafts, but the users involved are often not utilizing or fighting against drafts. Especially as we're so close to having information, it just seems complicated. I'd love feedback. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
As you say, moving articles on upcoming events to draftspace is a standard practice. Redirecting is another option. If somebody objects, then that's really the end of the story: being an NPPer doesn't give you more of a say in content disputes such as which namespace a page should be in. Ordinarily the next step would be to take the article to AfD to find a consensus, but since we all know these events will be notable, and an article will be created about them soon enough, it's a bit of a waste of time. All in all routine sports articles like this are extremely low-priority for NPP, so unless there is something screamingly wrong with them, you should just mark them as reviewed and move on. โโฏJoe (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
When an event is happening in the current week it might be more helpful to tag the article with {{under construction}} and/or {{ongoing event}}, rather than complicating matters by draftifying or wasting time proposing deletion. It would be even better if the creating editor added the {{under construction}} tag as a reminder to other editors to give it a few days. These 2022 Asian Games articles are confusing because they initially look like a past event until you read the text and see that they are taking place this week, September 2023. PamD07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Confusing "Orphan" tag
Greetings, some time ago, I tried out NPF and added Filter to show Orphan articles. Finding a few articles with multiple Orphan tags, I did a little investigating. I know there is a time-lag delay from when the article is first tagged to browser refresh. More importantly, I can see how the tag itself can be confusing. What are thoughts of changing the tag? It could be: Add orphan (article missing tag & needs to be tagged); or Tagged orphan (article already tagged & needs de-orphan). So this will clarify the appropriate action. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
What text are you proposing we change? Special:NewPagesFeed - > set filters -> are orphaned, Special:NewPagesFeed red "Orphan" that appears next to some articles, or something else? โNovem Linguae (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Potential new-new pages patroller
I'm considering applying for a trial of the reviewer permission in time for the backlog drive. I wanted to ask if anyone had any suggestions for me as for what I should do or any helpful things to know before doing so. Thanks. Deauthorized. (talk)16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Apply soon, since WP:PERM/NPP usually takes about a week. The main thing WP:PERM/NPP admins look for is experience in processes involving notability, such as AFD or AFC. โNovem Linguae (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I think I have a good grasp on notability. I'll try applying for a trial period tomorrow, and see how that goes. Thanks for the feedback. Deauthorized. (talk)00:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I recently used the Page Curation tool to send an article to AfD. When doing so, the Page Curation tool leaves a notice on the talk page of the editor to inform them of the pending AfD discussion. The notice (example) contains the phrase Hello, [article creator's username], and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username [my username]. This is perfectly fine for when articles created by newer individuals, but this may come off as condescending when it's used on the talk page of more experienced users.
Is there a way for me to customize this message so that the bits targeted at new users only trigger for users who meet certain requirements (such as those users not yet having attained ECP), or would this require a change to software for it to work?
I don't believe customisation is available now, but I don't keep up with Page Curation patches (I will ping Novem Linguae who probably can help with this). But personally I just don't see any advantage Page Curation has when marking AfDs over Twinkle, which has a more informative user template (instead of this which is IMO completely unnecessary for anyone with over 500 edits) and also allows previews and delsorts easily. The template for CSDs is not that bad, but is to me much less informative than Twinkle's one (just saying Hello [example], I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [example article] for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top for G11). VickKiang(talk)07:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. If there's no objections, let's just change PageTriage to use the Twinkle AFD user talk notices. I imagine those have plenty of consensus and solve the "sounds patronizing" issue. phab:T344980 โNovem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There's actually 11 of these "I edit here too, under the username" templates used by PageTriage. They've been used for many years without complaints. I'm having second thoughts. Would like to see a few more folks weigh in, I think. โNovem Linguae (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
More NPPers should definitely weigh in on this issue since the current wording seems to be back in 2018 (five years ago). I also agree that this is not an urgent issue- one can of course always usee Twinkle as an alternative. VickKiang(talk)10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I am a brand new NPPer but have a decent amount of other experience. This does remind me of the one time I had a NPPer PROD one of my pages (talk page archive) and I thought the text felt informal in the wrong way, if not quite patronizing, and the kind of pretending to be custom written but I knew it was just a template. It's a hard line to find the correct tone, I think, and potential deletion of one's creations is fairly serious to most editors and I do think it's worth reviewing/adjusting these to perhaps be more in line with Twinkle or otherwise adjusted.
As for the lack of complaints, I can't speak for others but my guess is that most people receiving these notices don't know where to suggest changes to the text and/or are more focused on the fact something they worked on was just nominated for a deletion process. Skynxnex (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I have added a version at User:VickKiang/sandbox, which is not a comprehensive overhaul but IMO it changes all of the obviously problematic parts (we.g., welcoming and I edit here too). Another solution is to replace entirely with the Twinkle one. I will ping @Red-tailed hawk and @Skynxnex above (should I also notify the editors who commented at Phab?). However, I am terrible at editing templates, so if everyone is okay with the proposed text change I would like someome familiar with templates to do the change because I definitely will mess up something. (Forgotten to @Novem Linguae:. Thanks.)VickKiang(talk)06:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
VickKiang, I think that is an improvement. I don't have a strong opinion about more larger changes or wholesale replacing with Twinkle at this time. But I'll keep thinking and monitoring this discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
How is the information that a page has been reviewed or unreviewed stored? Does it keep record of the history or is it just a record of current status? Please ping with reply. Cheers, ยท ยท ยท Peter Southwood(talk): 06:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood. Both. The SQL logging table keeps a record of the history in the Page Curation log. The SQL pagetriage_page table keeps a record of the current status, with only articles reviewed within the last month kept in there. The absence of an article in the table is assumed by the system to be reviewed. Hope this helps. โNovem Linguae (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Thanks, That is most of what I need to know at this stage. I just need to find out what it means from a lookup point of view, as I do not know what an SQL logging table actually is. Cheers, ยท ยท ยท Peter Southwood(talk): 07:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, as "the editor", no. I run the check articles that are automatically flagged as potential copyvios, or if I have other reasons to suspect plagiarism (odd formatting, phrasing, etc.) Running it on every article seems like overkill and a failure to assume good faith to me. We already have automated tools and editors running dedicated copyvio patrols. โโฏJoe (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think AGF applies here. The first sentence of WP:AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." In this case, checking with earwig isn't us trying to figure out if a person is doing something deliberately (or not), but it is actually checking the second part of that sentence (whether the action was harmful or not). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
AGF applies everywhere. But to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with running an article through Earwig just in case, it just makes your life a hell of a lot harder if you don't try to develop a sense of what's suspicious and what's not (cf. why we don't use pending changes on every article, why we don't run CU on every new account, etc). โโฏJoe (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
AGF does not apply to copyvio checks. Otherwise, the whole NPP process would be an AGF violation because we are looking for many potential issues upfront. Especially since these checks are silent and do not yield any interaction if no issue is found. The parallel with active measures is not appropriate: CU has a strict regulation because it interferes with privacy, pending changes is used sparingly because it interferes with editing by many users, etc. MarioGom (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Running it on every article seems like overkill and a failure to assume good faith to me. I think your opinion is out of alignment with best practices and you should start running Earwig on every article you mark as reviewed, before you let through a bunch of copyright violations. โNovem Linguae (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it is best practice to run Earwig everytime, but I don't think it's mandatory to use Earwig specifically. It's just mandatory that you conduct some type of check for copyright violations, whether you use Earwig, CopyPatrol, Google, or something else. The flowchart and instructions make that clear. I certainly wouldn't rely on just my instinct to check for copyright violations. โโFormalDude(talk)11:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I routinely run a copyvio check when patrolling new articles. I'll note that violations can occur even with no ill intent on the part of the creator, and if they are missed at this stage, they may become harder to clean up later. Complex/Rational12:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
IMO Earwig checks should be done subject to common sense exceptions (i.e., you can do a far quicker check for a two sentence geostub or species article, or if you previously have checked numerous of an editor's articles and they are completely clean with regards to not only copyvios, clear attribution in edit summaries, and no user talk warnings on related subjects whatsoever for 1+ year; or when copyvio is so blatantly obvious). But except occasional cases, Earwig is a mandatory step for the reviewers this tutorial is targeting who are not veteran cv patrollers (after Earwig, if text still seems suspiciuous and has pdfs, TWL links, or foreign language sourcing, IMO reviewers ideally should (but not mandatorily since this can be very time consuming if not in reviewer's expertise) do more spot checks. There are also alternative methods to Earwig that have been removed since the condensing. I agree that the copyvio section should have been condensed, but IMO a concise summary for other helpful methods to check copyvios (i.e., copy and paste Google, spot checks with refs and pdfs in article, spot checks with the person or organisation's website, and another now deleted tool) is useful, not just repeating the cv policy, and was helpful to me at least when I was in NPPSCHOOL. Just my two cents. VickKiang(talk)21:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I copyright check every article, either Earwig or by googling phrases/sentences at random. (The latter can be better than Earwig because you can search paywalled sources like Google Books, that Earwig would miss.) Even if it doesn't look like cv or have any of the signs, I've not infrequently found unacceptable copying from the source. (t ยท c) buidhe05:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I usually run Earwig when reviewing DYK nominations but don't use it so much at NPP. At NPP, the articles often seem too rough or stubby for copyright to be an issue. And where they are more developed, they often involve translation issues and I don't find Earwig to be so useful in that context.
Another issue is that Earwig is often quite slow and so running it manually is not a good use of my time. Such automated checking is best done by a bot or the like and it's my impression that this is already done. "Don't keep a dog and bark yourself."
My personal technique is open a bunch of tabs for articles to review, click "Check for copyvio" on all of them in turn (from User:DannyS712/copyvio-check), then go back to the first one which is done by then, and only look at the actual Earwig reports when the value is above something like 25% or otherwise it looks suspicious. I'm more thorough than I used to be, but probably do still forget or accidently miss checking the odd one. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
It is been a while since I have done NPP, but I have not used Earwig for every article I patrolled, and I have often relied on a few "smells" to use it. On the other hand, when these suspicious signs appeared, I also found copyvio that was not detected by Earwig. MarioGom (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I probably run earwig on half of the articles I review, or a bit less. I do spot checks occasionally, and I run it on longer (C-class or a long start-class) articles, as well as articles that I have a bad feeling about. Edward-Woodrow โข talk18:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Woah. I rely on the curation toolbar and where it flags a copyvio I'll off and check that but not otherwise. Are we saying the toolbar ain't reliable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The toolbar checks it a different way. I think it uses eranbot / copypatrol, which uses the turnitin api, which is not as good as earwig, which uses the google search api. โNovem Linguae (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Done. โโฏJoe (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed As of 8:00 UTC today this bug should be fixed :) Thanks to User:MPGuy2824 for testing the fix. -- Sohom (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)