Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

NPP Drive

Morning folks!! Is there any plan to continue the drive for at least another couple of weeks, or even a month. I don't mind putting another couple of weeks into it, even though I've got a ton of work to get through this year. I do plan to do more on a continual basis. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The January drive is now complete, but I'm sure there'll be another one later in the year. You're very welcome to keep patrolling the meantime though. :-) Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The drive ended three days ago and already the backlog is growing again. The drive before that was in October, so if we extend this one by another month we'll have a six month period were there was as many drive months as non-drive months. I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing; this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no doubt that you're right, but how do you think that might be achieved? since it hasn't been so far. More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling? (but are barnstars enough?) Or agree easier-to-implement assessment criteria? or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide? Ingratis (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no magic bullet. Both of those suggestions would help. Awards for regular reviewing is a perennial suggestion that I think is just waiting for someone to pick it up and do it.

I think the written guidance is about right in terms of balancing thoroughness vs. efficiency. The problem is that many newer reviewers—I have no idea why—believe that they have to do a lot more than has ever been stated there. In particular I think the misconception that NPP is responsible for policing notability is in large part responsible for that 'residue class' and needs to be worked on.

In addition to that, steady recruitment of new patrollers is obviously key – as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. Autopatrolled is another important lever we can use to control the rate of articles entering the queue. At the moment people are uneasy about it because of the risk presented by permanent grants, so if someone could resolve that policy knot and allow us to use autopatrolled more confidently, that could be a huge help. Finally, I think we're long overdue an proper evidence-based assessment of draftification and whether it actually helps to maintain encyclopaedic integrity or merely multiplies the workload of reviewers. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well unless I’m completely misreading the NPP tutorial we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. The work you do to determine whether an article is a hoax, an attack page etc. gives you your answer about notability as a by-product in most cases. I don’t have any brilliant ideas for how to keep the backlog permanently lower though. A sudden mass extinction of footballers would certainly help, and maybe admins should be a bit less picky in granting autopatrolled. Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

for some reason the 'redirect' backlog in particular, seems to be getting larger (not sure why)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it's worth noting that the drive that just ended was focused only on reviewing articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think extending backlog drives beyond a month would probably burn folks out. Part of what makes a backlog drive work is that we get a bunch of people to focus on something, together, for a short time.

I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing. Yes, but how? Obvious problem, non-obvious solution. Recruitment efforts are ongoing.

this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. These backlog drives are doing their job. They're not getting to zero backlog, but they are keeping us stable at 8,000 unreviewed articles over a six month period. See graph above for supporting data. I think it's safe to say there's no way we would be at 8,000 articles right now without these two backlog drives. So in my opinion backlog drives are very successful, and I plan to keep doing them, perhaps 3 or 4 a year.

More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling? We have a program to reward regular reviewing. @Dr vulpes is the current NPP awards coordinator. Sure, maybe this can be expanded, ideas are encouraged :) Please also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing.

we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. Agreed that modern NPP does have to check notability. I do think this adds a significant amount of time to each review. Opening and evaluating sources for GNG is not fast. However I would not be in favor of eliminating this because it is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability. Most folks want us to do this.

or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide? This is the nuclear option. If the backlog gets ridiculously high (like >25,000), I will look into software changes to let articles fall off the back of the queue. Not there yet though.

as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. This area has backlogs around two weeks sometimes. Not ideal, but it seems to self-fix. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[It] is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability – it's absolutely not a 'fringe position' to say that NPP does not have to perform detailed checks of notability, which is all that anyone is saying: reread the tutorial (current and past versions), reread the earliest guidelines we had, reread Insertcleverphrasehere's original flowchart, reread past discussions on this talk page, listen to the concerns expressed elsewhere by users with decades of policy experience about (some) NPPer's current bloated expectations. Notability has always been a peripheral concern of NPP, far down the list of priorities and generally limited to checking for obvious lack of significance (CSD-level or near) and using {{notability}} tags to triage more complex cases. Because our purpose is and always has been triage: quickly dealing with threats to the encyclopaedia, then marking less serious and more time-consuming issues for attention by other processes. Who are these 'folks' that have asked us to depart from this longstanding consensus, and do they realise how big our workload already is? – Joe (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I did not have the energy to fully review the very large number of changes made to the WP:NPP page, so it may still need additional editing to reflect current practices. I am aware that WAID, a great editor, shares similar views to you on this, and you two may be the main editors with this particular position. I am hesitant to trust years-old diffs for indicating what the current practices are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Thank you for the compliment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe@Novem Linguae, I kind of agree with both of you. Before ACTrial, notability was a concern, but not the primary concern. Afterwards, it became the major concern because most of the flow of garbage we had been previously inundated with had slowed markedly.

Honestly the only workflow change likely to improve the slog at NPP in the long run is to require sources be in the article, or else be deleted. It is a huge burden on patrollers to have to search the entirety of the internet for notability checks every time someone submits a one paragraph article with no references or links. When the effort form new page patrol exceeds the actual effort put into creating the article... there is a problem (especially when new articles are generated by ChatGPT and similar AI tools).

However, this is not something that WE can change. It's baked into Wikipedia policy, and these disucssions have been brought up before. There are a lot of editors opposed to deleting unreferenced new articles (some who are, and many who are not new page patrollers). This mostly comes down to philosophy, as many view Wikipedia as a work in progress where even poor starts to potentially notable topics are valuable. Many of us at NPP take a more practical approach: we simply can't keep up with the workload of dealing with these 'poor starts'.

What has resulted? Massive burnout, and also a lot of shortcuts designed to try to funnel these articles out of the system; draftification has been used, sometimes against policy, to funnel many of these notable but terrible articles to draft space, where they mostly die.

What is the solution? We aren't going to convince people to tighten the new article standards to require sources, there's too much momentum behind the old system of "collect and improve junk". We can continue to expand draftification of unreferenced articles (tough I believe that the current rule is that we can't draftify a second time if re-created in main space, which ties our hands).

Another solution, for which I believe the technical capability now exists, would be for someone to train an AI to understand Wikipedia's notability processes, and run automated checks on all new articles. After all, if people are using AI to write new articles, we should be using AI to fight back. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere, I think that if someone were to propose that all new articles be required to include at least one citation to a (any) source, that it would be adopted. If you'd like to pursue this, I suggest:

• Don't put any limits on the source. It doesn't have to be independent, or contain a particular number of words, or be available online, or be properly formatted, or anything else. Just one source. A plain old bare URL to the subject's own website, even. We'll raise the standards in the future, but for right now, you need to focus on establishing the basic principle that completely, totally, obviously, unquestionably, indisputably unsourced articles are unacceptable.
• Grandfather in all the existing articles. We'll make it retroactive later (just like we did with unsourced BLPs), when the steadily shrinking backlog of unsourced articles gets cleared.
• I suggest requiring only one source. You might be able to get support for two sources. Asking for more than that could doom the proposal. We can raise the minimum requirements later.

In terms of other considerations, you need to think about whether you want to fight over lists. A "List of other notable articles" might be closer to a dab page than to "an article".

The community will probably want this to be "a policy", though it would make the most sense to put it into WP:N. Start by drafting something like "As of March 15, 2024, all newly created articles are required to contain at least one citation to a source that verifies some part of the article content. This does not apply to disambiguation pages or lists whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g., the List of lists of lists)."

I would point out that this merely takes the existing, familiar, workable standard established by BLPPROD and applies it to all "normal" articles. Familiarity is popular; novelty is suspicious.

Speaking of BLPPROD, I don't think it will be necessary to propose an enforcement mechanism right away, though a sticky prod would be an easy approach. Options might include deletion, userification, or draftification. You might have to reassure people that of course it won't be (or, more accurately, won't start off as) insta-deletion before they can make a second edit, but I'm not sure that it will be necessary to settle that in the first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@North8000, this relates to a discussion we were having recently. I really do think that a minimal, carefully limited WP:PROPOSAL would be successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My main goal was just to evolve towards clarity in this confused area rather than tighten up. I brought up that many articles that aren't "list" articles are actually list articles. And in the context that list article are given vaguer/lenient treatment in the wp:notability guideline. I mentioned that if I were king, I'd make it that a criteria for a list article should include that it's a grouping that it's likely that multiple people would look for/use in an enclyclopedia. If there is an immediate issue/ question it's the zillions of "stats only" "derived topic" sports articles that are going in. For example stats only on some medium level team's results of their 2021 season. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). – two or more references. That is an exceedingly quick and easy check. Note the absence of a requirement to go looking for sources, and that if the answer is "no" the most onerous check required down the line (only in certain circumstances) is googling for the existence of uncited sources. And ICPH's workflow certainly represented one of the most thorough takes on NPP at the time it was made.

WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. – well, that's not true. My views on those issues, as clearly stated elsewhere, depart from the consensus guidelines on a number of points. I don't understand what grounds you have to continually assume that I am either incapable of editing based on consensus or choose not to, but I'd appreciate it if you could at least try to evidence your aspersions next time. In any case, I've already linked you to the version before my (or your) changes, which if anything gives even less weight to notability. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

When Novem Linguae says "Most folks want us to do this", I think it might be more precise to say that most folks want Somebody else to do this. NPP looks handy for getting stuck with this (C'mon, guys, you're already looking at all the new articles anyway, so can't you just stretch your mission just a teeny tiny bit to include this adjacent thing?), but it's not the purpose of NPP.

We need someone to do CSD work. That's why we support groups of editors in looking at all the brand-new articles. Attack pages need to be killed within minutes, not when that one guy who specializes in Argentinian people sits down to see whether any interesting articles have been created recently. Attack pages hurt people right now. Copyvio pages cause legal liability right now. NPP is the "someones" that banded together to find and kill these urgent problems.

By contrast, we only want someone to do notability work. If we have an article about Non-Notable, Inc. for a while – even if Google chooses to index it, even if it deserves an {{advert}} tag (but not if it's actually blatant advertising), even if it's 100% WP:Glossary#uncited – it's not the end of the world. Anyone can check that; it doesn't have to be NPP, and NPP doesn't have to do it. We do have some editors who want this done systematically. They also overlap with the group of people who want it done by anybody except themselves (also, for the reviewer to have their own level of understanding of the subject matter and their exact same views about what subjects qualify for a separate, stand-alone article).

To give you a little potted history of NPP, it might be helpful to look at the versions in place when some of the editors in this discussion first joined Wikipedia:

• When Joe created his account (March 2005), here's what WP:NPP said. They had just given up on the original NPP goal, which tried to make sure that each article was reviewed at least once, by having editors sign up for hour-by-hour slots every day. You were supposed to check all the new pages from, say, 11:00 to 11:59 on March 18th, and then put your name in the log to let everyone know that they could skip those. About a third of the instructions is related to speedy deletion criteria (CSD wasn't a policy back then).
• When I created my account (August 2006), NPP didn't exist. The original had been merged to RC Patrol. This is the first version after @Chaser split it back off. Note that NPP was discouraged from sending articles to AFD (called VFD back then). Conclusion: NPP was not the notability police.
• When Novem created his account (January 2009), here's the state. Slightly more than half the text on the page is about speedy deletion. NPPers are encouraged to improve articles, including to "try to find some [sources] yourself", but my recollection of that time is that mostly, they tagged them instead of improving them.
• When Ozzie created their account (October 2012), we have this version. The Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School has just been added. The "school" was largely the invention of a single editor who had a very expansive idea of what NPP should do (e.g., checking for spelling errors) and thought that it was essential for NPPers to check dozens of criteria for each page. The page opens with attack pages, hoax articles, and copyvios. It has introduced the concept of "Patroller checklists" and has long lists of things to consider. The article checklist on that date included 10 separate points, the first of which was CSD, and the second of which was "Does the article belong on Wikipedia?" This represents the introduction of the idea that NPP is a comprehensive peer review of everything about a new article, rather than primarily a CSD-focused shop.
• When Ingratis created his account (January 2019), we have this version. The main change is that (since October 2016) we now limit the people who can take a page out of the review queues. The page is four times as long as it was ten years ago. It boasts about being one of the most important and vital tasks done by editors with "near-admin knowledge" who "review correctly and seriously" (emphasis in the original). It declares its purpose to be "policing the quality of the project" to prevent "poorly written" and "bad pages" from being indexed by search engines. But when you cut through all the puffery, what's left is: the #1 job is to find and kill attack pages, hoaxes, copyvios, and CSD-worthy spam. Everything else (and there is a lot of it) is secondary.
• Today: The page has been shortened a little, and the flowery, self-congratulatory (inspiring?) language has been removed. A simplified flowchart is offered. The list of tasks is pretty burdensome, but no longer asks NPPers to check grammar and spelling.

So that's a little history, and now let me add: That effort to make NPPers do it all? It didn't work. A couple of editors advocated very strongly for their view, complained at editors who didn't follow their advice, ran off folks who disagreed, and generally did everything humanly possible to develop NPP into their ideal, but what actually happened was: Editors interested in NPP quickly checked brand-new articles against the CSD criteria. If the articles didn't qualify for CSD, they moved on to another article – silently, in many cases (which leads to those backlogs), but they kept looking for CSD-worth problems.

I recommend looking at the page views for new articles some time. It is not unusual to have a BLP get 20 page views in the first hour and 50 page views in the first day – and to still be in "the backlog" a week later, because most people doing the core NPP work don't really want to do all of these "extras", so they do the parts that they care about and declare the rest to be Somebody else's problem. We're doing that work inefficiently (so many editors re-re-re-checking for attack pages without any of them knowing that someone else already did that), but they're dong the essential work of NPP, which is to get CSD-worthy pages off to CSD as rapidly as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Amazing history. Thank you for sharing all this. I had no idea that OG NPPers used to assign timeslots to each other. What an intriguing way to do NPP.

The overall vibe of your post seems to be "the process is too complicated and should be simplified". I can think of several other projects on Wikipedia where the process is complicated and has not been simplified, so those might be worth thinking about a bit. Four examples that jump to mind are WP:GOCE, WP:GAN, WP:AFC, and WP:CCI.I don't know much about GOCE so will skip that one.

I have the impression that GAN clears their backlog every once in awhile, especially around WP:WIKICUP time, so is an example of a complex process that is often backlogged but works sufficiently. Kind of like NPP. WP:AFC is also very similar. AFC oscillates between months-long backlogs and zero backlog depending on when and how successful their last backlog drive was. So another complex and sufficient process.

I think WP:CCI is not so successful though. Their process is too complicated and they have reached the point where they will never clear their backlog. But they have elected not to simplify their process. Perhaps because there is a legal pressure for them to not take shortcuts and a legal pressure to check every diff.

It's almost like these complex process WikiProjects are on a slider, with one end of the slider being successful / able to reach zero backlog (AFC), the middle being unable to reach zero backlog but able to stay stable for the time being (NPP), and the other end being so horribly backlogged that they will never catch up (CCI).

I'm not sure what my conclusion is. I guess my conclusion is that while it is a lot of work to have a complex process such as GAN or AFC or NPP or CCI, before simplifying it we will need to carefully weigh 1) whether it is sustainable (NPP for the moment is holding steady at 8,000, so yes it is) and 2) whether the process provides value to the encyclopedia (I think most would agree that having a systematic way to check notability is valuable to the encyclopedia, so I think that's also a yes).

With that in mind, I guess my conclusion is that NPP is hard work, but it is desirable to keep the current process, including notability checks, at least until we get too overwhelmed to continue. As I mentioned in my OP, if the backlog gets ridiculous, such as >25,000, that'd be a great time to revisit our options and actually make a change. But for the moment we are holding steady at 8,000, and it'd only take one Onel5969 or JohnB123 getting active again to achieve zero backlog.

One final thought: we did simplify our process a year or two ago. ICPH and others discussed it and agreed to make the "gnoming" steps of the flowchart (maintenance tagging, WikiProject tags, categories, stub tags) optional instead of mandatory for NPP. So that is a win for NPP process simplification. Gnomes can handle that at their convenience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's another consideration, which is whether the benefits of having One Process to Rule Them All outweigh the risks.

Generally speaking (CCI is the only exception to this that I'm aware of), if an editor is handling something important, then everyone else leaves them to it and does something that either appears to need the help or is more fun. When a process looks like it needs help, someone will usually step up to help. So, e.g., when I answered nearly all of the questions at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, then the editors who would have answered those questions found other things to do. When I (deliberately) stopped answering questions, others stepped up. End result: ELN no longer has a bus factor of 1.

If you take this concept and zoom out a little, then the bigger a group's process is, the bigger the risk to the community. If NPP handles (for example) CSD only, and leaves everything else to others, then we have pretty good resiliency. If NPP all quit en masse, we'd have to replace their CSD-screening function immediately, but the entire rest of the system would be okay. If, on the other hand, NPP handles not only CSD, but also notability, de-orphaning, adding maintenance tags, resolving draftification disputes, helping newbies, stub sorting, correcting Wikidata's interlanguage links, explaining notability concepts, reviewing AFC's work, fixing formatting, WikiProject tagging, checking grammar, and more, then the disappearance of the group, or even a drop in their productivity, would be a nightmare. Everything would break.

The first simplification that I would suggest is that you figure out what's optional and simply remove it. Instead of marking an activity as optional, don't mention it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

IMO the biggest and most essential NPP job is implementing the "should this be an article?" criteria. And 90% of that work is wp:notability not CSD. And 80% of wp:notability work is handling difficult article situations. For example, examining non-english sources fluently enough to determine if they meet GNG, or searching for and evaluating non-english sources on an article with no GNG sources before AFD'ing it. Or trying to figure out what to do with an article which fails wp:notability in a topic area which has a strident fan club active at AFD. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

North, do you think that it is important for the "urgent CSD tagging" group to be the same group as the "determine notability" editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think that it's per se important that those be the same group, but I think that the as a practical matter, they need to be. They are both "should this be an article?" functions and separating them would mean that nearly every article would need to be reviewed twice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This makes me think that perhaps we should have two different review buttons, one for "passed CSD criteria" and one for "Passed full review and notability checks". This would allow CSD-focused patrollers to find their targets quicker, and allow notability focused patrollers to work on the other cases in a more relaxed manner.

Currently we are doing this anyway, except at busy times we have 20 people looking over the article as it passes the start of the queue, and stepping over each other in their eagerness to press the CSD buttons, meanwhile at quiet times when there aren't many reviewers some of these articles slip through into the queue, meaning that very occasionally CSDable articles slip through into the months long backlog. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 00:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that having separate buttons would help a lot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, more buttons has pros and cons. It would be easier to hit the buttons because there'd be less steps, and folks could more easily specialize. But two buttons means twice as much button clicking (technically doubling the backlog), twice as many log entries, and more data in the PageTriage SQL database. Also, CSD and notability aren't the only mandatory checks at the moment either. We're also supposed to do copyvio check and title check. So that could mean up to four buttons. Finally, are we confident that the same amount of reviewers would be able to do twice as many reviews? Hmm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyvios are {{db-copyvio}}, and therefore covered by CSD.

I think that if you clicked the "passed full review" button (titles would be part of that, no?), then it would make sense for it to auto-click the "passed CSD-only review" setting.

This type of change would result in twice as many log entries, and changing the log format is on my mental list of scary things to do, but (a) it's not as scary as changing the prefs database, and (b) if it lets editors reduce duplication and understand which work urgently needs to be done, then it's probably worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume that Novem is referring to the copyvios that clearly need revdel or listing at copyright problems. These are obviously problematic and need to be hidden from public view, but have some salvageable content for G12 to not apply. I think most of the copyright-infringing articles at NPP fall into this category, as G12 are usually taken care of quite quickly. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like that would fall into the full review, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, I am grouping "make sure Earwig's copyvio tool has been run on this page and the results analyzed by a human patroller" and "glance at the page and look for CSDs" into two different groups. But yes, I suppose you could combine that step if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It is interesting what you say about new pages getting 50 views in the first hour and still remaining unreviewed. I've always known that there was a ton of 'doublework' going on, but it would be interesting to quantify how much of this there actually is.

An idea that just occurred to me now: What if we could automate a system that temporarily removed a page from the New Pages Feed whenever a new page view was registered by a new page patroller or admin? Even a few minutes being dropped out of the queue would massively cut down on duplicate work, especially at the very front of the queue. This would have to be a toggleable option in the feed obviously; a default exclusion of "viewed by a patroller in the last 5 minutes", but that could be turned off for people that want to look anyway.

I wonder if we cut down on the duplicate work how much more efficient our system might become? — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356826

This is technically feasible, via a pagetriage_tag like patroller_last_view_timestamp or something. This would avoid collecting any data on who viewed it, and just keep track of the timestamp for filtering purposes. Then we would add something like "[ ] Was recently viewed by a patroller" to the filters menu and default it to unticked. I'll make a ticket to centralize discussion. If folks want this, be sure to comment in the ticket or leave a thumbs up token in the ticket. Ditto if folks object. phab:T356826 –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Phab etiquette discourages support/oppose comments. Therefore, please disguise all such comments so that they look like they are primarily providing factual information that might be useful to a coder/designer/product manager. The user story format usually works, so try writing something like "As a New Page Patroller focused on preventing attack articles, I want to avoid duplication of effort while checking all brand-new articles as soon as they are posted..." If you want to be this week's favorite editor, then tell them what your problem is ("It hurts when I do this") instead of what your suggested solution is ("So we need to flarble the glibitts"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I often look at and skip articles in the cue. Sometimes it's mood....when I want an easier day I skip articles that should be AFD'd, especially articles which should be AFD'd but which have a fan club at AFD that beats up people who do that. Or skip edge case articles. Some require either fluency in a non-english language to evaluate or search for non-english sources (or lots of slow work with translation tools) When I'm up for a more challenging day I do all of those. Some articles require specialized fluency in the topic or related SNG. Other times I see one that was recently tagged (but not marked as reviewed) by a NPP'er and there has not yet been enough for a chance to develop in the tagged area. If the tag is an area which would cause a fail, it's particularly important to do that but even if in a non-fail article quality area I tend to avoid passing an article that a NPP'er recently tagged. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On the front of the queue, if you're concerned about someone not reviewing it (e.g., an admin who normally doesn't do NPP work), you could hide it for five minutes (or three) only after two reviewers have looked at it. That should reduce any concerns over the first being a mis-click and resulting in a CSD candidate existing for several minutes longer than necessary. A brief delay would also give those reviewers a chance to finish dealing with it before the next person looks at it. That would increase the chance that the third NPPer would see an already-tagged page instead of an edit conflict. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Samwalton9 (WMF), as he might be interested in these ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability question

In NPP, I came across Coat of arms of the Hauteville family - which is apparently a translation of an equivalent Italian Wikipedia article (by a declared paid editor) about a dynasty on which we already have an article. On the face of it, the article is well-sourced. My question, though, is it actually notable? Looking through results for a search for articles titled "Coat of arms of the", the first several pages of results are all countries, provinces, states or cities. Around 100 results in, there are some individual Polish family results. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - but the article on the coat of arms is several times larger than the article on the family that bears the arms. It seems... WP:UNDUE? And a merge would also be ridiculous. Or am I just overthinking this, it's clearly a notable topic even though the 'main' article isn't that big, and I should serve myself a trout? Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are sure there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then yes, you are overthinking it. The decisions about which article should be bigger, what information belongs in which ones, whether one article should be merged with the other, whether there is too much detail that needs to be cut down, are all things that normal editing processes can handle. But I would be more careful about what the article says and what sourcing there is. For example, consider the following:

A similar but more articulate thesis was made by the Sicilian historian Agostino Inveges, in the third volume of his Annali della felice città di Palermo, prima sedia, corona del Re, e Capo del Regno di Sicilia, a work that was printed between 1649 and 1651. In the views of Inveges, who took up the theses of Giuseppe Sancetta, the Hauteville adopted the new coat of arms, abandoning the one with the two lions of the Duchy of Normandy. The monarchs were to be endowed with a coat of arms "with two stripes, or as Sancetta says: with two bends sinister, chequy gules and argent on a azure field: as is seen in three very ancient wooden plaques hung in the Cathedral of Palermo above the Royal porphyry tombs of King Roger, and of the Empress Constance his daughter [...]".

It ought to be sourced to a modern scholar who's writing about the Inveges book and/or the coat of arms but it's not. It's original research by the editor, since it cites the Inveges book itself. Without having read the book, I wager that the Inveges book does not in fact say "In this book that will be printed in the future, I present a similar but more articulate thesis..." There maybe something useful in the source but it surely does not support all that the article claims. I would suggest checking whether that kind of issue is less or more over the whole article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the exact concern is whether the article is based on sources that cover the topic directly and in detail, or more likely, the paid editor is writing a good article using their own writing chops, then appending sources that look legit but cover something tangentially related, or even unrelated. For example, one could say "this coat of arms is a derivative of the more famous this other coat of arms", then they could build a huge legit looking article with sources that cover that other coat of arms. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nicôle Lecky

There seems to be a bit of a mystery about this article not showing on google, your help is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Appears to have been a bug, if our techie colleagues would like to investigate. It appears a page swap move fooled the curation tracker into thinking it's an old article being moved around. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

MNL League Cup to be draftified

Hello, new reviewer here asking for help! MNL League Cup in the feed should probably be draftified. In this case and for future reference, should I leave this to someone with page mover rights, or is this something I can action myself?

(I notice that the article has previously been draftified; there might be a WP:CIR issue with the author, 20% of whose edits have been deleted.) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need page mover rights to draftify an article. If you use User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, it will automatically tag the redirect left behind for speedy deletion but if you forget to, you can tag it yourself as WP:R2 (WP:Twinkle is a big help in that case).

But if an article has already been moved to draft space once and the creator moves it back to main space ("objecting" to the drafication), in general do not re-draftify and instead nominate at WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted, redirected, or draftified. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. (Looks like it was moved to draft space again as Draft:MNL League Cup 2 since it appears(?) it was recreated in mainspace instead of trying to move the page at Draft:MNL League Cup?) Looking at them, I think returning either to mainspace isn't the best path but I hope the above helps for future cases. Skynxnex (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you for taking the time to respond so clearly and helpfully; I really appreciate it!! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Episode 22" and multiple others

A user is creating a series of disambiguation pages titled "Episode n", which all disambiguate to "Episode n" (Primeval) and "Episode n" (Twin Peaks). But there are no articles at those destinations, they're redirects, to List of Primeval episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes. I had listed some of these as CSD (Unnecessary disambiguation page), it was removed, another NPP patroller had done the same, this was also removed. So there is some confusion - are these valid disambiguation pages, or not? My opinion is still "not" - we should not be deliberately linking to redirects, but I'd like to hear from more experienced patrollers. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was also pondering those redirects. MOS:DABMENTION supports linking to redirects If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link may not start the line (unless it has a redirect that is devoted to it), but it should still be the only blue wikilink. I do not recall, but could have missed it, any sort of general guideline/consensus about dab pages that only link to elements of articles instead of a mix of articles and mentions.

I'm a bit more wondering if the Primeval episodes are actually referred to by their overall position in the full show or not, since no series has more than 10 episode and our episode list has their name as their position in the individual series (the Twin Peaks entries seem fine under DABMENTION). A Primeval fanfic site has an episode 22, https://primeval-fanon.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_22_(ARIT), but it's fanfic and not currently notable. I can't find any sources referring to any episode of the show itself as "Episode 22". So all/most of them probably could be deleted for that reason (WP:G14), unless other shows/things ever are referred to that way as a title. Not sure if it's obvious enough to still be G14 eligible since at least some of them have been reverted by another editor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion these disambiguation pages are fundamentally doomed - we can't hope to list ever single epsiodic product in existence with at least 14 episodes, so we shouldn't even try, and, if there are no articles titled "Episode XX (Show)" the dab page should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Idea to reduce redirect backlog

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.

---

I've been meaning to suggest this for a while now, but I'd like to propose that redirects left behind from page moves by page movers should be automatically marked as reviewed. Page mover is granted to individuals that have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming, and I don't think it's generally necessary for us to be checking the work of page movers. It may not represent a significant impact on the backlog, but I think everything that we can do to reduce the backlog and the work of reviewers is a step in the right direction and helps to make the workload more manageable.

If there is consensus for this suggestion then we would obviously need to ask @DannyS712 to make adjustments to their bot, or ask for someone else to write something up, but I don't think there's a huge technical burden or hurdle to implementing something like this. Additionally, if there is a way to do so, we could also hopefully apply the same code, in which redirects from a particular user group would be marked as reviewed, to admins. This way we can remove admins from the slow to load and cumbersome redirect autopatrol list to make managing the list easier. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a page mover who is already on WP:RAL. Page movers are (supposed to be) competent with moving pages, and with the backlog, moves by page movers need not be checked. ^Queenof_Hearts 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support; this seems like a no-brainer. As for the implementation, searching for one-revision redirects tagged {{R from move}} where the page creator is a member of the page mover group should be enough for a bot to mark it as reviewed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, can we run a query or something on how many of these redirects are still in the queue so we can get an idea of what kind of effect this proposal might have? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm happy to try and figure out the bot implementation if there is consensus for this - I think its probably easiest if I have my bot do this rather than adding a second patrolling bot. Please ping me if you have any questions or if this is closed with consensus in favor and I'll work up a BRFA --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd absolutely prefer you to be the one to implement this if you're up for it @DannyS712. There was also a discussion at one point last May about patrolling based on user group. The difference between this and that suggestion is that this suggestion is strictly redirects left behind from a move whereas the admin suggestion is one that applies to all redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I saw the discussion last May and I'm still willing to implement that too if there is official consensus in favor of that proposal (maybe restart the discussion here instead of on the autopatrol list talk, which is less visible?) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @DannyS712: We already implemented autopatrolling admin redirects by adding all admins to the RAL. The suggestion from May is meant to make the RAL more manageable, as it takes a long time to load now and can be a bit of a glitchy pain to manage. I bring it up because I figure if the task will be focused on patrolling based on a user group, then it makes sense to apply it to admins as well to reduce the size of the RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I saw, and I'm happy to have the bot take that over if there is consensus. As for this discussion my understanding is that we don't want "all" redirects created by page movers, just those that result from moving a page --DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yup! That's exactly the suggestion and it feels like the next logical step for us to take :) Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a common sense way to reduce the backlog. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)  Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:Page mover of this discussion. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure this really affects that group, as it's really only something that members of the NPP team should be concerned about, but I don't see the harm in a notification. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Like Queen of Hearts above, I'm a page mover who was manually nominated for and added to WP:RAL a while back. Page movers are vetted for their track record of understanding PAGs related to page titling, and many of the redirects they create will be straightforward {{R from move}} situations that I wouldn't predict would need much human oversight, so this seems to me like a sensible way to reduce the backlog. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Great idea and anything that can reduce backlogs would be welcomed Josey Wales ^Parley 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Yup, seems like an excellent proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• support good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)01:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose this implementation, although I would support in theory. The page mover and autoreviewer permissions are completely different ballparks. For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue. I'm in support of further developing the WP:RWHITELIST and putting page movers on it (which would cover their moves and also general redirects too), but having page-moves be autopatrolled was never part of the Page Mover toolkit, and is an additional step-up in trust that we're putting into page movers that was never considered for the other 400 current page movers that were previously added to the user group. Future considerations will need to be made that "by granting this permission, NOBODY will see these moves in the new-page-queue, when they used to be visible before", and this fact will be forcefully grandfathered onto every existing page mover. It's a new level entirely, and the redirect autopatrol-list was created as a new avenue to gather the creators of numerous redirects, and evaluate them for a parallel permission, not grandfathering the entire user group.

I was also talking with Josh earlier about having admins automatically be redirect-autopatrolled; I'm not sure if that's the current implementation, but (to my understanding) admins wouldn't even be part of the Page Mover user group (because they'd be able to suppress redirects with the administrator toolkit already). To me it seems that admin-redirect-autopatrolled would be more priority than Page-Mover-redirect-autopatrolled... but once again I'm not completely aware about who gets autopatrolled besides the people already on the redirect autopatrol-list. In any case I would much rather contain the ability for auto-reviewing to be contained with something "NPP related", and the Page Mover perm isn't necessarily that. At the moment I feel the backlog is in a pretty healthy state that is; sure it goes up and down but I wouldn't call the situation dire enough to enact massive new-redirect-patrol bypasses for an entire existing user group. Taking a look at the redirects that get affected, it's really not going to change the total number by too much, and an extra set of NPP eyes I feel would be only beneficial, just in case. I don't know who's account is getting hacked tomorrow, so as long as the new redirects show up in the queue then it looks like it'll be easy patrolling if there's truly no problems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on the point that autopatrolling page move redirects would be a step up in the trust we place in the page mover group. Page movers are already expected to have a working understanding of the policies and guidelines surrounding titles, and so are almost always presumed to be making logical, informed moves. It's the same amount of trust I think we're putting in them by giving them the suppressredirect flag, for example, if not even less. You also say "For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue." If I'm not mistaken, the reasons behind those two are completely different, so I'm unsure why that's being brought up here. Exempting every administrator's articles from scrutiny by patrollers is not the same as exempting a specific fraction of a page mover's redirects. And just for the record, all administrators are on the redirect-autopatrolled list by default, which naturally includes page moves. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Page movers should be competent enough for this IMO. I personally treat this differently to my views on article autopatrol. Article autopatrol rights deal solely with the creation of new articles and I beieve that other user groups (e.g., NPR) shouldn't get autopatrolled bundled or automatically allocated. However, this idea only grants redirect autopatrol rights only in a specific and narrow way. Besides, page moving is not an easy perm to get. Its minimum requirements (6 months and 3000+ edits) are higher than rollback/PCR/NPR. The other criteria for page movers (beyond the minimum requirements) is intrepreted more strictly by PERM admins compared to, say, PCR or rollback. Moreover, many PERM admins usually only grant a three-month trial, which allows for scrutiny. As such, I think this is a sensible proposal that would not represent a major step up in trust. VickKiang (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Implementation

Okay, so I made a query for all unpatrolled redirects with exactly 1 revision, where the redirect was created by a page mover, and there is a move log at the same timestamp as the edit creating the page:

Query to run

SELECT page_id AS 'pageid', page_title AS 'title', ptrpt_value AS 'target', actor_name AS 'creator' FROM page JOIN pagetriage_page ON page_id = ptrp_page_id JOIN pagetriage_page_tags ON ptrp_page_id = ptrpt_page_id JOIN revision rv ON page_latest = rev_id JOIN actor ON rev_actor = actor_id JOIN user_groups ON actor_user = ug_user WHERE ptrp_reviewed = 0 AND ptrpt_tag_id = 9 # Snippet AND page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 AND EXISTS ( # Only 1 revision based on rev_count page triage tag SELECT 1 FROM pagetriage_page_tags tags2 WHERE tags2.ptrpt_page_id = page_id AND tags2.ptrpt_tag_id = 7 AND tags2.ptrpt_value = 1 ) AND EXISTS ( # Move log from the same time by the same person SELECT 1 FROM logging_logindex lgl2 WHERE log_namespace = page_namespace AND log_title = page_title AND log_timestamp = rev_timestamp AND log_actor = rev_actor AND log_type = 'move' AND log_action = 'move' ) AND ug_group = 'extendedmover' LIMIT 100;

and if there is consensus in this discussion then I'll file a BRFA asking to be able to patrol these automatically. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@DannyS712: while you are working on this, would it be possible to finish Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Protected edit request on 23 April 2022? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster thanks for the reminder - I should be able to do that at the same time DannyS712 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2024 (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.

Joan Riudavets

There appears to be some confusion with the Joan Riudavets article. There has been past disagreement re: AfDs, redirects, etc., however the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (There is also an error on the article's Talk page.) What needs to be done in this case? -- Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, I found the AFD they were talking about in the back and forth. So, I have redirected the article again, and asked for protection at WP:RPP. We'll see what admins say about that. The talk page was made when the page was a redirect. That is why it was showing an error when it turned into an article. In general, when there's an edit-war about whether a page should be an article or a redirect, consensus should be sought in a merge or a deletion discussion. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. (For clarity, the logic for the deletion appears to be that we don't want standalone articles about supercentenarians who are only notable for their longevity.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March redirect drive?

Is there any talk of a redirect backlog drive soon e.g. March or April? I ask because at the point of writing this there's over 22k unreviewed redirects, which is a lot more than when previous drives have been started. greyzxq ^talk 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a moratorium on redirect backlog drives and hybrid redirect+article backlog drives until we reach zero backlog for articles. I feel that articles and article backlog drives are more important, and backlog drive exhaustion is a concern. We can only have so many backlog drives in a year before folks become exhausted. Unfortunately I think this means that some redirects will go six months without a review and then be auto-reviewed by the software, but I think this is the correct decision here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree about backlog drive exhaustion and where the priority should be. I'm not opposed to another combined drive though, possibly later in the year, provided the backlog for articles comes down a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's also the unreferenced article backlog drive this month, and the GAN one next in March, and whilst I agree articles are more important for redirects, I'd personally be against another NPP drive until at least April. (No talk of another AFC drive at least, as the last one was only in November.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Recognition for consistent reviewing

This was mentioned in the above topic a few times. I started a discussion on it at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Recognition_for_consistent_reviewing and there was support for it but it didn't go much further. As described there, IMO it's a way to build the healthy horsepower that we need on an ongoing basis. I ended up by saying I would list the results in that talk page and then see if folks want this to go any farther. Basically it will list how long of a stretch persons have of doing at least 30 reviews per month starting with January. And I'd do the first listing after month #2 which is February. So if you're interested in this, do at least 30 reviews each and every month. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you did 30 reviews during January and want to stay in on this be sure to do 30 in February. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Britfilm

Not going to PERM because I've never gone before but Britfilm has 600 articles in the past year (~80 in the queue right now) and I am not seeing any deletion controversies. Articles are not massive but they're using proper sources and I don't see what NPRs can do except marking them reviewed. Why go through the motions? Can't y'all just give them autopatrolled? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Their talk page shows evidence of multiple articles being moved back to draft space, not to mention multiple nominations for deletion. I don't think they have a sufficient success record for autopatrolled. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anything recent, but it's a messy talk page. Not sure how tough the autopatrolled requirements are nowadays. I doubt autopatrolled editors have a 100% non-deletion record. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Would recommend posting this at WP:PERM/AP. Each perm has admins who are comfortable processing that type of perm request, and that is the page they watch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, as I said, don't feel ready cos never done that. But if I got this one passed, and if they went on to create 600 more articles this year, I would have had a bigger impact than all the reviews I could do in a year. That's why I am trying to figure it out. I know PERM admins watch this page. So, just give me feedback on what you look for and find comfortable approving, so I can keep an eye out for it. By email, if not here. Please! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not efficient to request it here. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Britfilm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it, but okay, I guess. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

'Mark this page as reviewed'

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358592

Would it be possible to have an "Also mark as reviewed" checkbox added to the bottom of the "Mark this page as reviewed" popup in the Page Curation tool? I've lost track of the number of times I've written a message to a page creator and hit "Mark as reviewed" instead of "Send message", which, yes, marks the page as reviewed, but loses the message I've written. Other popups from the tool have such a popup. To clarify, there are two options when you click on the button - mark as reviewed, or send a message; you can't do both, even though other such buttons have the dual functionality. (Yes, this is "me" problem, but I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone!) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it help if we didn't have the flyout auto-close when clicking a button? You'd have to click both "mark as reviewed" and "send message", but you wouldn't lose your message due to the flyout closing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would work just as well. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Another option would be to copy what we have on the tagging flyout: Add a checkbox saying "Also mark as reviewed" next to the "Send message" button. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Who recommended me?

Hello to whomever makes comments on this talk page! I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. Just curious who did so and why because, after reviewing the guidelines for granting user rights, I'm not sure if I am the right type of editor for working on this project. I'm more than willing to help considering the backlog, but within the range of what is explicitly acceptable by content policies, I tend to be an inclusionist. On the other hand, participating in this would help me gain a better understanding of what content in practice is precluded by Wikipedia content policy where the policies do not explicitly preclude it in detail. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there @CommonKnowledgeCreator and thank you for asking. These messages are automatically sent to people that meet a specific set of requirements like recent edits and no recent blocks. Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here, many of us share that same ideology and it shouldn't be something stopping you from requesting the right. I've been reviewing for 3 months or so and have enjoyed my time - reviewing is something you indeed get used to in the long run and it has helped me understand content policy better and write better content. There's also a program called WP:NPPS which you might consider. I'd encourage you to apply, though! NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here. Agreed. Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. Our judgment calls need to align with typical, average community consensus, rather than an inclusionist instinct.

If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable, you can always focus on easy accepts. WP:NPPEASY. There are plenty of those. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. ... If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable... I wouldn't say that I'd find nominating articles for deletion to be uncomfortable. I've now reviewed all of the "Essential further reading" essays and policy pages at WP:NPPS. Where content is clearly violative of policy, I'm completely willing to delete it and to do so proactively. I guess my only complaint over years of editing and getting into disputes with other editors from time to time is that I sometimes feel that long-time editors sometimes impose reverts to content that the policies don't explicitly preclude and are in a sense enforcing policy rules that doesn't don't exist. But with that qualification aside, I've come to the conclusion that I am willing to apply since this appears to be important work in furtherance of the project and valued by the community. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NPR-related BRFA

I have an open BRFA to replace EranBot's task of reporting potential copyright issues from CopyPatrol to PageTriage (NewPagesFeed) used by NPR at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

New Page Review of Drafts

At Miscellany for Deletion we sometimes see nominations of drafts that have been nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. These are kept, citing an essay that has a slightly inaccurate title but is otherwise entirely correct, Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity at MFD. They are reviewed for notability and sanity when they are submitted to Articles for Creation. These nominations are almost always almost certainly good-faith efforts by reviewers who are trying to help the review process by reviewing drafts, and applying the same criteria as they would apply to articles. So my question is whether clear advice is needed to reviewers that it isn't necessary to review drafts for notability, and that their effort might be better spent in reviewing articles that have not yet been reviewed. I understand that drafts are reviewed, but they should be reviewed by reviewers who understand that they are primarily checking for attack pages and other BLP violations that should be tagged for G10. Drafts are, when necessary, tagged for any of the General speedy deletion criteria, but mostly unsubmitted drafts can be left alone except by their authors. Drafts are tagged for G11 if they are advertising, but that can be done if and when they are submitted for review. Since drafts are not indexed, most kinds of useless drafts or stupid drafts can be ignored.

I haven't recently read the instructions for new reviewers, so maybe they are clear enough. What I do see is that drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. My concern isn't so much about the waste of the time of the editors at MFD, as much as the time that is apparently being spent by a few reviewers checking drafts for notability, when they could usefully be checking new articles for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, do you have any examples? NPRs should be experienced enough not to do that. It could be AFC reviewers or new editors who are trying to gain experience to later apply for AFC/NPP. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - AFC reviewers also should be experienced enough not to do that, and AFC reviewers would also decline or reject the draft, whether or not they also incorrectly tagged it for MFD. The MFDs in question did not also involve declining or rejecting the draft. Maybe they are new reviewers trying to gain experience. How do I check whether they are NPP reviewers? If they are inexperienced editors without review permissions, should we discourage them, and how? I think that reviewing new drafts and tagging one or more of them for MFD does more harm than good. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, yes, ideally, AFC reviewers should also be experienced enough not to do that, but it would not be a problem for this board. Same with the non-hatted draftspace patrollers. Editors need to gain experience somehow, and in any area, the most effective way to do that, has always been to make mistakes. Some won't repeat once told and go on to become valuable addition to the corps, some that don't listen will have to be removed from the area, as with everywhere else. You'd check for NPP perm here: [1]. For AFC, you'd have to check whether they're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - As a senior AFC reviewer, I am reasonably certain that the editor was not an AFC reviewer. The draft was not on any of the queues that AFC reviewers rely on. I have never seen an editor whom I knew to be an AFC reviewer nominate a draft for deletion that had not been submitted for review. I have often seen AFC reviewers nominate drafts that were tendentiously resubmitted for deletion, but that is not the situation here. So we are in agreement that this was a new editor seeking review experience before being given a permission. So the question, as you note, is whether they take the advice to stop nominating drafts for deletion for lack of notability, which is not a reason to delete drafts. Drafts are occasionally nominated for deletion,and are deleted, as hoaxes or as BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, new editors inevitably make a couple of wrong CSD and prod noms too, they're also seen at AFDs, and in many ANEW and ANI reports, even DRVs, even arbitration requests. It would actually be surprising if somehow MFD were the exception. I would suggest that their nomination could be reverted on the spot instead of being entertained for a whole week. That could be the best way to address disruption to MFD without asking them to stop patrolling draftspace altogether, where they may gain valuable experience with CSDs, copypatrol, username patrol, etc. Whether reverting at MFD could be experimented as a bold action or you'd need to first bring up the issue and get a tentative consensus for it, you'd know better. Best — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah. your original concern was more with patroller time than MFD time. In that case, just what you said, yup. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - Yes, my concern was with new patroller time, not with MFD time. It doesn't take the MFD reviewers long to write Keep and explain about drafts. Reverting an MFD isn't feasible, just as reverting an AFD isn't feasible, because MFD causes a lot of things to be done, including generation of the MFD discussion page (which is the equivalent of an AFD discussion page). An MFD can be Speedy Kept, just as an AFD can, but it isn't clear to me whether either SK1 or SK3 apply. But, as you note, the real issue is new patroller time, and they will learn from the comments of the MFD participants. If the good-faith erroneous MFD nominations are not coming from NPP editors, then experience is the only teacher. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jules Michelet work disamibguation

Hello, how would one disambiguate Histoire de France? Using the original French title doesn't seem correct for the English WP, History of France (Jules Michelet)? IgelRM (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this topic, but we should probably use the WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think is more commonly used, 'Histoire de France' or 'History of France' (Jules Michelet)? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need to be disambiguated? There seems to be no other article at present with this title. Are you concerned that it might be confused with History of France? If so, a hatnote might be useful: {{about |the book|the history of France|History of France}} or similar? PamD 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But perhaps a redirect to Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece (and possibly renaming that section to clarify that it's about Histoire de France) would be a better solution? PamD 14:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's far more information at Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece than in the stub. --John B123 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@John B123: @PamD: So redirect for now and maybe draft this if the creator wants to continue working on it? IgelRM (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not worth draftifying - the content will still be there in the history if this is just turned into a redirect. PamD 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And then, perhaps, add the same hatnote as suggested above, to the top of the section (which I've renamed to the more informative Jules Michelet#Histoire de France, leaving an {{Anchor}} at the old section heading so that old links still work. PamD 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I have redirected it and informed the creator. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) doesn't say so in so many words, I think it implies that the article about a book should have the original title of the book, if it is written in the latin alphabet, unless there's a good reason not to. There's nothing to suggest that the title should be translated, unless the book is better known in English-language sources by a translated title. In this case, the sources all talk about "Histoire de France", so that's the title of our article. PamD 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My concern was indeed that it may be confusing if someone searches Wikipedia and expects History of France. DreamRimmer: For example, the translation by the British Library uses an English title (History of France. Translated by G. H. Smith). (Category:History of France also suggested that) I think the suggested hatnote is great (dunno if that is still disambiguation work). I assumed sufficient notability based on reviews around Jules Michelet. But the article is low effort even for a stub that I would like to draftify.

(Huh ignoring Salome (play), so generally a Latin name with many diacritics etc is fine but Japanese kanji are not.) IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Latin letters, even with diacritics, can still be understood by anyone who reads English, which is not the case for Japanese. Also, the convention is to create a redirect without diacritics ({{R to diacritic}}) if the title contains them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It was just a side realization for me and not meant critical. What English foreign titles may be understandable seems rather subjective and depends on the reader's cultural knowledge (Kanji were not a great example but I imagine there are more intuitive script cases). IgelRM (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added the hatnote I suggested above, and a couple of useful categories. PamD 08:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about the intent of Template:R from miscapitalisation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Petrol

The article Auwalu Abdullahi Rano get Wikipedia notability but it was not appear in a searching Engine. Because Auwalu Abdullahi Rano was a Nigerian Businessman, oil tycoon, and public figure. Bamalli01 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bamalli01: A reviewer will get to the article in due time, please be patient. There is a backlog of other articles waiting to be reviewed, and we do not prioritize certain articles upon request. Please also note that new pages patrol is run by volunteers, as are most processes on Wikipedia. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Tools

I am the new guy on the block, so the following problems might be between the chair and the keyboard. Still,

1. The curation tool, when the RFD path is chosen, inserts the {{Rfd-NPF}} template without a newline at the end, thus making manual deletion of the template harder and creates a possibility of accidentally removing the REDIRECT itself. See, for example, [2]. Simply adding a newline to the inserted text should help.
2. When I try to withdraw the nomination using WP:XFDcloser, it get stuck and does neither remove the {{Rfd-NPF}} from the nominated redirect page, nor tag the talk page.

I wound up always manually deleting the tag due to #2, and at least once accidentally deleted the redirect due to #1. Any pointers will be appreciated. Викидим (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Criterion #5 for granting

The fifth criterion may be rather confusing. Does it means that one should not have blocks in place in the last six month or blocks placed in the last 6mo? Too curious to ask this because I have had a partial block from August to November; I would theoretically be ineligible for the rights until June if the criterion meant active blocks withing the duration. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's the former (blocks in place in last 6 months). I've boldly edited Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Guidelines for granting to make this clearer. The latter (blocks placed in last 6 months) would create a situation where you could be blocked for most of the six months, just had it expire, then apply for NPP, which I think most would agree is not desirable.

Your situation (a partial block that expired 5 months ago) is borderline and I think a PERM admin would evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks by the way. Since the block was as a result of "clerical" activity that was criticized here and here. However, it is unrelated to content editing, deletion processes or AfC. I will try to apply soon. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 07:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, NPPers,

I have a question I hope someone can answer. I see a lot of draft articles and I monitor the Move log so I see a lot of articles that have been moved from User space to main space by new editors. When I first started doing this, I'd see a link stating "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom of all of the new pages added to main space. Now, I only see this tag on about half of the new pages (or fewer than that) that are added so I'm worried that these new articles are not appearing on the page lists that NPPers monitor. I check the page log to see if the article has already been reviewed and they never are. Has something changed in the bot or mechanism that tags new articles? Are new articles not reviewed if they are moved from Draft space to main space? Are there other reasons why this patrol link would not appear on the page? Lots of questions I've been wondering for a few weeks now. Thanks for any answers you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liz, the "Mark this page as patrolled" button is hidden by PageTriage in mainspace, as the Curation toolbar's "Mark as reviewed" button does the same thing (in essence). Unless the user moving the page is autopatrolled, the absence of an entry in the review log and patrol log should mean that the article is still in the queue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey Liz. Can you give some links please for further investigation? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You can install the User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/ReviewStatus userscript. It displays the review status next to the page name, making it very easy for you to check if a page is marked as reviewed or not, especially if patrol logs are not available for a page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

NPP Browser tool

Thanks for mentioning the NPP Browser tool in the April 2024 Newsletter. I have not seen this before, and think it is fantastic and rather helpful. FULBERT (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ditto here! I plan to make heavy use of it with my reviewing in the future. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. We will try to add more useful tips in the next issues. Thanks to MPGuy2824 for regularly maintaining this tool. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Next backlog drive

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.

---

Howdy folks.

Looking at the article backlog graph, I think we need to have 3–4 article only backlog drives a year to maintain our current backlog levels and prevent major backlog growth. 4 backlog drives a year is too many for burnout reasons. So I think we should consider 3 backlog drives a year that focus on articles only (no redirects). That's a cadence of one every 4 months. Our last one was in January, so that would mean we should look into doing another backlog drive in May.

Thoughts on this? Shall we move forward, or do we need to adjust the details? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Novem and I have been discussing this and I'm comfortable running 3 drives a year. We agree that the focus should be on articles over redirects. With that said, I would prefer to have at least one of the drives be mixed, with a lower weight provided to redirects (.2 pts each) than our last mixed drive (0.25). Hey man im josh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the backlog seems to be a recurring problem, I was wondering if maybe it'd be easier to organize a monthly/quarterly recognition barnstar based off database reports instead of constantly organizing backlog drives? That way people are still being recognized on a regular basis for their hard work keeping the backlog down (and it's more frequent than the yearly awards). It also encourages people to do what they can, when they can, somewhat frequently. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, sending out a batch of barnstars for consistent reviewing has never resulted in a 6,000 article drop in the backlog graph like a backlog drive does. I still like sending out barnstars since it probably creates some motivation and staves off burnout a little, but it does not seem to be in the same league as backlog drives. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of backlog drives as it helps to keep me focused on this during the period. 3 or 4 a year sound great, perhaps with a special barnstar for people who edit the older articles in the backlog, such as anything older than 3 or 4 months? I just did a check and we have 312 articles from December 1, 2023 and older. Perhaps those are more complicated ones, and it would be nice to clear them out also. FULBERT (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (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.

Sonu Sharma

Hello all, someone emailed me asking to create an article for pay for Sonu Sharma, a motivational speaker. I was concerned about how they obtained my email address, as I use it exclusively for Wikipedia. Given my strict stance against paid editing, I declined the request. If any reviewer comes across an article creation for Sonu Sharma, please remember to check for any UPE/COI concerns. Thanks. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 —Sirdog (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What happens to the copyvio tool?

Usually I can easily just click on "Check for copyvio" on the NPP toolbar, but for these few days the tool seems to not be working. It says "Calculating copyvio percentage" but the result never came out. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve had the same. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DannyS712, the maintainer of the User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js user script, to see if they can assist. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a CORS error. Bug report filed at User talk:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js#CORS error. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have forked this script. See User:DreamRimmer/copyvio-check.js – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So what happens if I install this script? Will it override the script by @DannyS712 on the Curation tool? Thank you! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You'd want to uninstall the other script before installing the fork. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Does your fork fix the bug? Also we could just wait for Danny. They edited earlier today. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have fixed the bug and added error handling. I'm okay with you or Danny moving the code to his script and deleting my fork, since all users have already installed Danny's script. And if Danny wants to handle his script differently, that's entirely up to him :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. DannyS712, the maintainer of User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js, fixed the bug today. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on enforcing general sanctions on new articles

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. One possible outcome (Question 1, Option D) would affect the workflow of new page reviewers. – Joe (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Page curation toolbar

I clicked on the close button, the little 'x' at the top of the toolbar, by mistake. Now I can't see my toolbar. How can I restore this? As far as I can tell, it is no longer there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

For clarity here is an image: [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Click on "Open Page Curation" in the tools section (or tab, if you're using Vector) of the sidebar. – Hilst [talk] 00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hilst: OK. That did it. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Attention

As a heads up, for consistency with other templates, I will move a few templates relating to the deletion notices on user talk pages such as Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:AfD-notice-NPF, and this can be impacted a lot. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: Woah, hold on. Why are you moving these? Why is consistency is needed? Have you discussed this anywhere? Have you verified that the Page Curation extension will still be able to find them at the new titles? What if the redirects are deleted? – Joe (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

It is logical that redirects are left when moving page and still works. But consistency is recommended as in Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:Rfd notice (it was moved following discussion). If there is disagreement, then it must be reverted. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't find what discussion you're talking about. I think it would be best if you self-reverted and created an WP:RM – that is almost always a good idea before embarking on mass moves. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Mass moves can cause problems. It is best to gain consensus first. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I undid a couple of these just now but I think @ToadetteEdit should undo the rest since there's objections on this page. Here's the rest that need to be undone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Switch to normal deletion templates instead of custom ones?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T362477

Honestly it might make sense to get rid of these custom NPR deletion templates and just use the standard template. Not sure we need all this code duplication. But that's something to discuss after everything is moved back and we're at the status quo ante. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of that. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur. —Sirdog (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Leaving a note functionality

{{Sentnote-NPF}} still includes the advice to sign posts with tildes, which is unneeded now that that is done automatically by the reply tool. It also asks for a ping on reply to the editor who left the note. We should be able to take this out as well by having the Page Curation tool by automatically subscribe the reviewer to the section. How would that be changed? Sdkb ^talk 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the removal of the four tildes or the echo notifications option. I think it's best to leave in. By definition, the project deals with a lot of newbies and sometimes, as much as you expect them to follow instructions or use things normally, they break. New users may just respond by editing the talk page (or any other manner possible). In this case, I think leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone, and in the event that they do leave the four tildes, the reply box signs once only anyways. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also taken to leaving <!-- copy this as it appears rendered on the page, not from the edit screen--> as a note between the <code><nowiki> </nowiki></code> tags because I've seen people copy <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> right in their replies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone This is a really common (and understandable) belief — and it's 100% wrong. It's the main reason our guidance is filled with an impenetrable maze of WP:CREEP. And a wide body of usability research shows that what it causes is not for users to read and understand the extra instruction, but rather to go "that's too long" and not read any of the instruction, thus missing out on the more relevant instruction that they actually needed. Sdkb ^talk 19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the reply tool on by default for all editors now? I've lost track of what's a script and what's a gadget etc. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "reply tool" is mw:Extension:DiscussionTools, which is a MediaWiki extension. Good question about whether it's on by default for everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk pages project § Deployment status states that DT the Reply tool should be on for everyone by default. Whether or not everyone is actually using it is a separate question, though. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Edited. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we certain that most or all the new editors replying to this message will be using DiscussionTools and not the source editor? Anyone using the source editor would still benefit from the advice to sign their posts and ping the reviewer. Not against removing the advice, but just want to make sure that the assumption that most or all new users now reply using DiscussionTools is correct.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329346

Getting PageTriage to auto subscribe the user to user talk sections that PageTriage creates is phab:T329346. I wrote a patch for this in another tool recently, and have plans to eventually roll it out to Twinkle and PageTriage. Will leave some notes in the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Drafts - proposed split

There is currently a discussion at WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of WP:Drafts. The thread is WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio tool problem

Hello y'all. Today I encountered the same problem like few days back, the copyvio tool on the toolbar is not working anymore. Are y'all experiencing the same thing as well? The error is similar with few days ago - it stuck at "Calculating copyvio percentage". Pinging @DannyS712 as the creator of this great script and @DreamRimmer and @Novem Linguae that assisted on this problem last time. Have a pleasant day! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1. When using the copyvio tool via the user script you're talking about, I'm getting 502 Bad Gateway.
2. When using the copyvio tool directly (example), I am getting An error occurred while using the search engine (Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests). Note: there is a daily limit on the number of search queries the tool is allowed to make. You may repeat the check without using the search engine.
3. When using the API (exact URL here), I am getting {"status": "error", "error": {"code": "search_error", "info": "An error occurred while using the search engine; try reloading or setting 'use_engine' to 0"}}.

Quite the assortment of errors. 2 and 3 look related, but 1 may be separate. Hmm.

Can you try it again tomorrow and let us know if there's still a problem? 2 and 3 should clear up tomorrow. The daily limit resets daily. This may or may not fix 1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It has worked well for now, thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

UPE sock with NPR blocked

I'm notifying editors here that I've indefinitely blocked User:Loksmythe and revoked their NPR/autopatrolled user rights-- they're a likely sock of User:Plot Spoiler, who was indefinitely blocked for suspected UPE. I'm not sure how much scrutiny their reviews warrant, although I'm just now seeing they reviewed some articles created by hoaxer User:Fad Ariff, who was also likely involved in some paid editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Moneytrees. We've been making an effort to track this sort of thing at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Advanced permission holders connected to UPE. I'll add it to the list once I'm back on PC if no one does before me. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh That's an interesting page, I've added them myself now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Moneytrees! The more data we get the more useful it will be. Though, ideally, we wouldn't have more data to add to the page lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFOLWP - translation attribution

WP:TFOLWP requires attribution in an edit summary (in a prescribed form: "Content in this edit is translated from the existing [source language] Wikipedia article at [[:[source language code]:Exact name of [source language] article]]; see its history for attribution.") of articles translated from Wikipedias in other languages in order to preserve edit history, copyright and so on. When articles are translated using the translation tool, a much shorter edit summary note is added automatically: 'Created by translating the page "[[:[source language code]:Exact name of [source language] article]]'. Is this an adequate replacement for the WP:TFOLWP wording, or should that be added separately? Ingratis (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as it provides the source project and page name it should be fine. The precise formats on that page are just recommendations. Could add a {{Translated page}} to the talk page as well, but that's optional. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Those folks are more likely to be experts on copyright attribution. By the way, link to translation tool, or instructions on how to open it? If you want to get its edit summary changed, we should figure out where its code is located. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

mw:Content translation – Joe (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's a suggested rather than a prescribed form. The attribution requirements of our license are notoriously fuzzy, with the only hard requirement being that it is done "the best of [one's] ability using the information available". As such, I don't think we need so sweat these differences in wording. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Best solution is to update the translation tool, imv (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

These things are often contained in local pages that can be edited by admins... the trouble is finding them. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(I shouldn’t really be here as I’m not an NPR but) Going by translatewiki, it looks like the relevant local page may be MediaWiki:Cx-publish-summary (in addition to two similar-looking messages at MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-summary & MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-lead-section-summary). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

OK - thanks all - that's v helpful. Best, Ingratis (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback / re-reviews

Hello folks. I'm just over a week into NPP-ing, and would welcome any feedback or re-reviews of my patrolling. You'll see a couple of occasions where I've corrected myself as I go, but keen to learn from anything I've missed. (FWIW, am planning NPP school too.) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider linking a specific article you'd like us to check out. Is less brainpower to check one article rather than several, so you'd be more likely to get a response. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae, that's fair! There's no specific ones I remain uncertain about, so my request was more "if you're doing re-reviews anyway as part of the backlog drive, mine are a good place to start" :)

But will be sure to share if any specifics come up. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about a link with "chrome extension" in a reference

This is probably not an issue, but could someone let me know if a reference starting with "chrome extension" is safe to open? I think it is going to load special software to view an unusually formatted link and this doesn't sound like something I want to do. See Msunduzi Municipal Library. Thanks and greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone copied the wrong url. I've fixed the url to what was intended. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a PDF, but unfortunately it is downloading at an abysmal rate and I can't yet verify how big it is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do moved pages need to be reviewed?

Everytime I move an article from one title to the other, I get a watchlist notification of the page being reviewed again by another editor. Why does the page need re-review? Is the reviewed flag strictly dependent on the article title, or is there a way out of this using wikitext and categorisation? I'm not sure how many newly created articles are moves, but I suspect it's just wasting volunteer time.

My suggestion is to change the tools used for Page moves so any moves automatically add "reviewed" status to the new article if the old page was already marked as reviewed. Soni (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Moves get reviewed because not every move should actually be made. I usually spend my time in the redirect queue and I've seen move vandalism, really contentious moves that shouldn't be made without consensus, etc, even if the most of them tend to be fine. You run into a similar situation with regular redirects – most are fine, some meet speedy deletion, others should be discussed at RfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I was considering 'reviews' strictly in terms of article quality but this helps me understand NPP much better. Thank you. Soni (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always feel free to ask when you're confused about something, it's how one gets to learn. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow up Q, what's autopatrolled and will getting that userright allow me to not see a bunch of review notifications each time I do a move/make a new page? A quick browse at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled doesn't tell me clearly enough if I qualify for it, I just would like to see fewer watchlist notifications.

I want to say I've never seen these new shiny toys before, but my memory is probably shoddy. Soni (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So autopatrolled is a right that basically means that anytime you create a page (or move one), it isn't normally in the NPP queue (there's a specific setting where people can see creations by autopatrolled users but people don't usually look at it because the backlog is bad enough as it is). A similar process (that involves notifications because it's patrolled by bot and is limited to redirects) exists at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. The autopatrolled right is really only given to people who have a history of creating at least 25 "clean" articles (so no maintenance tags) and don't have a history of other issues that would cause concern (examples: copyright violations or a non-negligible amount of articles deleted through AfD or other venues). Does that help clear things up for you? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think so. I don't think I create that many articles so I guess I'll live with a few extra notifications for now. Thanks Soni (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Just to be clear, it's not the article that's getting reviewed (the reviewed status moves with it), it's the new redirect you created at the old title. NPP also reviews redirects. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender, Foreign Sources, and WP:MAY24

For WP:MAY24 (I'd prefer the format WP:MAY2024) I decided to focus on the category Women inasmuch as theirs is a historically underrepresented category. On the one hand articletopic:women incategory:"Articles lacking sources from December 2009" seemed like a good chunk. On the other hand Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, et al. are guys. On the gripping hand some articles are sans references in English because the only references are other languages, and sometimes in one only. What is the policy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What's WP:MAY24/WP:MAY2024? I think those are both redlinks. Also what's the question exactly? I am not sure I understand. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024. – Hilst [talk] 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: Are you looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles? This is the talk page of Wikipedia:New pages patrol – articles from December 2009 are far outside our purview.

Though incidentally, it doesn't matter what language sources are in, as long as there are sources: see WP:NONENG. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kencf0618 It's a useful help to readers if references in other languages also use the "trans-title=" field to add the title translated into English, so readers can get a feel for what is being cited. Similarly, if the ref includes a quote, "trans-quote=" should be used to show readers the English translation of the quote. PamD 13:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

For our (backlog drive) purposes then one or two foreign references would suffice, preferably to reference works. Thanks, all. kencf0618 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends whether the purpose in editing is to tick boxes for a backlog drive or to improve the experience for the reader. PamD 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not mutually exclusive! I like getting citation fu right, and translating (say) the title of a foreign reference work is a simple matter. kencf0618 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You did take the point that you are on the wrong notice board? Ingratis (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request and leaving pages unreviewed

Hi all. I've been granted the NPP permissions at the beginning of this month, and while I have not been able to be as active as I had hoped to, I've done a few reviews now. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated.

But aside from that, I have a question. I've read nearly all the resources regarding NPP, including all the links found on WP:NPP and my understanding of the scope of the role is to a) quickly identify and take action against any egregious content being added (spam, attack pages, copyvio) and b) assess whether pages that don't fall within the scope of criterion a) are likely to survive a deletion discussion if they were to be nominated (if the answer is yes, then the page should be marked reviewed), and to improve them to meet this standard where possible, or to list them for CSD/PROD/AFD where not possible. I've mainly based my decision-making on c:File:NPP flowchart.svg.
Yet, I seem to encounter quite a number of unreviewed pages where experienced NPP patrollers have clearly looked at the page, and even made improvements (adding categories, tagging, other improvements) and yet chosen not to mark the page reviewed where in my estimation, the page is sufficiently good to mark reviewed. This is giving me pause, as it is making me questioning my judgement. I read the page, look at relevant info, decide that the page should be reviewed, and then I see evidence to indicate that somebody who is clearly much more experienced than me seemingly didn't agree with my assessment.
Can anyone shed some light on why experienced reviewers seem to often leave pages unreviewed? Am I misunderstanding the criterion/decision-making for when a page should be marked reviewed?

Sorry about the wall of text, and any feedback or input would be much appreciated. Melmann 20:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is common to leave borderline pages in the queue for a more experienced reviewer with a grasp of how AFDs usually go in that topic area to review. However if you're comfortable with your GNG/SNG/source analysis/notability analysis for an article, feel free to take appropriate action (AFD, mark as reviewed, etc.) You can also AFD a small number of articles you're less comfortable with and pay attention to the AFD outcomes to help self-calibrate.

Feel free to link to specific borderline pages here if you'd like a more detailed response. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated. is really broad and you are more likely to get useful feedback if you link one or two articles. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

One other possibility on those unreviewed pages is when the NPP'er tags it for issues which could cause it to fail NPP, to give article creator(s) a chance to fix the issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Complete list of older articles

Does NPP only display new articles up to 4 months old? Is it possible to get a complete list of articles created before 4-5 months, sorted by WikiProject or even creation date? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib, you can use Wikipedia:NPPSORT and NPP Browser. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You can use Special:NewPagesFeed -> set filters. There's a date range picker in there that should help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Basic steps

I got a bot invite to consider joining New Page Patrol. Sounded interesting, so I started reading the tutorial. Came to the section entitled “Reviewing — Basic Steps” and saw this:

Detailed flowchart for reviewing articles

Are you f*** kidding?

If that’s the “Basic Steps”, I can’t imagine what the “Advanced steps” are. Probably require a post-graduate degree.

Sorry, I’m out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So, the chart you've embedded is the advanced chart. File:Simplified_NPP_flowchart_for_articles.png is the simple chart. The advanced chart is indeed overwhelming and has been discussed here before, so your reaction is not entirely unwarranted. It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already. The brunt of the work is the notability in my experience. —Sirdog (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

“It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already.” Thank you for the compliment, but it’s not warranted. When I expand that chart and try to follow it, no, there’s lots there that I’ve never thought about. In any event, it’s way too dense to be of assistance, to me at least. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: You could have just not accepted the invite. What is the intent of this post? What are you hoping to accomplish? Is this just to complain instead of saying no thank you? But, as mentioned, that's the advanced / overly detailed flowchart. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me for thinking that you might want feedback on why someone is turned off by your recruitment drive, instead of encouraged by it to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If that’s the advanced flowchart, why is it right under a heading that says “Basic steps”? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We would want feedback, but your intent when you started this discussion was unclear, largely because of the "Are you f*** kidding?" Do you have any suggestions that you can make that would simplify the process or make it more easy to digest? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

1 Delete that chart entirely. It is useless.

2 have a short section clearly labelled “tutorial”, and providing a much more focussed discussion of the process, instead of the bloated page that is currently there.

3 keep the tutorial just to the tools, reviewing new pages, and do not BITE.

4 Let them start on new pages only.

5 later on, they can expand into redirects or other types of pages once they’re comfortable with the tools and the process.

6 move all the other stuff to a related page. An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages, or conduct, or unreviewing, or the administrators, or the entire history of the NPP. Have links to those issues on a separate page, not part of the tutorial, , so that a new NPP can learn gradually, without being overwhelmed by all that stuff.

7 make it easy to start!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

1 – That's very ignorant. It's very obviously not useless, even if you don't like it.

3 – What does biting have to do with our reviewing guides? We're usually quite helpful to newcomers who have questions.

4 – I'm not certain what you're getting at. The purpose of NPP is to review new pages.

5 – Redirects are actually a lot easier to review, though plenty of people have no interest in reviewing redirects and that's ok.

6 – An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages – We review articles and redirects. These are precisely what users need to know off the bat. Additionally, if we broke everything up into sub pages it would become more difficult to find relevant info. In it's current state, we can more easily find info on the page with the search function. Not saying there aren't improvements that can be made, but splitting things info further subpages doesn't seem beneficial to me.

7 – NPP is easy to start if you focus on your area of interest and have experience in the area in evaluating notability and other issues. It's why we frequently recommend WP:NPPSORT. However, there's simply too much to consider to say, "read this 5 minutes worth of content".

I do appreciate the feedback, but a lot of it seems to be from a place of not fully understanding the role of NPP and how we go about things. Are there improvements we could make? Sure, and we're always trying to do better. But we can't strip downs thing as much as I think you're suggesting. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

As with any guideline page, I think we assume that people read the sections that are relevant to them, i.e. you wouldn't read "reviewing redirects" if you only intend to review articles, and you wouldn't read the history section unless you were interested in it. Splitting these sections off to articles would make the page physically shorter, but I'm not convinced it would make it more readable, and there'd be a cost in terms of maintainability and ease of navigation. – Joe (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems a very valid point: Right beside the heading "Basic steps" I see displayed that elaborate flowchart. Yes at the very bottom (below the bottom of my laptop screen), that chart is labelled "Detailed flowchart for reviewing articles", but its positioning makes it look as if it belongs to the "Basic steps" heading.

Could someone perhaps produce a simple diagram which corresponds to the outline "Basic steps", to insert in the tutorial at that stage, to avoid frightening off newcomers who are hoping to help? Maybe a version of File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, but appropriate for including in the tutorial.

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz@Hey man im josh: MrSB's comment seemed to be constructive feedback, albeit worded understandably strongly. PamD 07:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That flowchart is under "basic steps" to avoid all the figures under "reviewing articles" from clumping together, nothing more. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

But placement is the message. The message I got was that chart was the “basic steps” I would need to master to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I agree that flowcharts are not the best way to present this information, but the actual policies and processes the flowchart describes are the bare minimum you need to know to patrol new pages. NPP deals with all new articles, and therefore every possible topic and every possible content problem; there's a limit to how far we can simplify that. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The flowchart was always meant to be something to use when you 'got lost' or weren't sure what to do. Flowcharts aren't meant to be something that you memorize, but rather something that you use to determine what your next step should be. In practice, the flowchart is relatively simple, because you will NEVER use the whole chart for reviewing an article; you will follow a specific path through the chart and end up at one or more end points after doing a number of tasks. Does it work for everyone? No. No method works for everyone. But for some people, this is an awesome tool. Is it intimidating? You could argue that, but for me the flowchart removes the "I don't know what to do next" from reviewing in 99% of cases. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that that chart is both very useful and also misleading. I think very useful because it covers practically all of the potential tasks and practically all of the potential scenarios. I'd rather have that than a chart that is missing things where I'd have to spend hours scratching my head trying to learn what's missing and learning it rather take a few extra minutes to read that big chart. On the flip side, if every NPP'er did a super thorough job on every task and possibility, we'd have a 2,000,000 article backlog instead of a 14,000 article one. Or get discouraged feeling guilty for not spending 1 hour per article doing a super thorough job on every task and possibility. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There diverse learning styles for Wikipedia's (steep) learning curve, and too it's good practice to have a formalized template, i.e. boilerplate. I look at the simple chart and see a blizzard of acronyms; I look at the advanced chart and see a clickable Venn diagram. (Click on this "Yes" and a section becomes moot.) Both the simple and the advanced charts serve their abstruse purpose, but basically one has to learn to learn. kencf0618 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Flowcharts

The complaint above was not expressed very nicely but does hit on a relatively frequent point of feedback about Wikipedia:New pages patrol, which is that the various flowcharts and diagrams might put people off more than they help.

There are currently only two flowcharts left on the page. To help decide whether they should be there, could we have a quick straw poll on whether current NPPers find them useful or not? – Joe (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Simplified

Do you find Novem Linguae's File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

• Yes Ingratis (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as a quick reference. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• No See Tick-box culture, "too much emphasis on following rules instead of actually helping". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean tick-box culture? As part of NPP, there are explicit things that need to be checked before something can be marked as patrolled? Whether or not that list is too long or overly bureaucratic is a different conversation from whether or not a graphical aid is useful. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes As someone who just started reviewing for this backlog drive, the other one was too "tangled" for me to use to double-check that I'd considered everything, but this one is helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [Originally I put this comment in the wrong place, but it's the simplified chart I use!] ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Somewhat It does have a number of good pieces of info and reminders (when to draftify, etc.), but for my ADHD mind, this leaves too many opportunities for me to skip a step, and actually seems more complicated to me. It requires me to keep more things in my head. But I can see why it would appeal to others. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 22:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed

Do you find Insertcleverphrasehere's File:NPP flowchart.svg useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

• Yes - this one answers more questions, but I wouldn't unleash it on someone until they had at least some experience. Ingratis (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes – I worked off of it for quite a while until I got the hang of things. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, an an in depth explainer on the different steps. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Even worse. See Computer says no. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Covers most decision points in NPP reviewing and so helped me get started. It probably is too many steps for a new editor but it is valuable. Skynxnex (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes As a new reviewer, I am currently relying on the detailed flowchart to learn the workflow, and when creating my first few articles, I used this image as a benchmark for minimum thresholds. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• No Sorry for confusingly putting my comment in the wrong place at first -- this is the one that I found too detailed in the wrong way as a newbie. It assumed I was checking things in a different order than mentally worked for me, and made it hard to keep track of my "place" in the process. I wouldn't at all advocate for removing it, but as an honest description of what I personally use, I don't use it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Is that the right question? Should the question be "When you were new to NPP, did you find the flowcharts useful?", as MrSB's point is that they are offputting for new or potential NPP volunteers. Whether they are useful as an aide-memoire for experienced NPPers is a different question. PamD 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes you're probably right, amended accordingly. This also isn't a very scientific exercise, since anyone really put off by the flowcharts probably isn't watching this talk page. But I can't see a way around that. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think I used any flowcharts but I certainly don't object to their existence. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Important as the NPP is, I've been doing my own thing as I go along. That includes NPP, but have not been keeping track of my stats. You won't see me posting over here much, but I want to say that the NPP is vital. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the XTools count of 1,192 NPP in my time on Wikipedia. My take, is that if a new article can be saved through NPP, then we did something worth while. NPP is often vital for assisting and retaining new editors. You all do an excellent job. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove my NPP flag

Remove my NPP flag, I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [4]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[5] doesn't neet G11 I obviously don't know what I'm doing and should walk away. @Bbb23: congrats you've finally driven me off, you might have some suggestions for how to fix the backlog at AfD and NPP since they are driving off participants.  // Timothy :: talk  16:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the permission per your request. I realize that it is probably quite frustrating to have a csd nom declined, but if you ever change your mind and wish to participate in NPP again, feel free to let me know. Sometimes the heat of the moment can make things more intense. I doubt Bbb23's intention was to drive away AfD/NPP participants. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bbb23 but I decline CSD-tagged articles fairly often when I disagree with the tagging, it seems like an inappropriate criteria or if it looks like PROD or AFD would be a more suitable form of deletion. In this case, this article was nominated for deletion consideration (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viraj Mithani). I never once thought of a decline as "driving off" an editor, we just have differing understandings of a particular CSD criteria. G11 is one criteria where differences seem most common, what seems "promotional" to one editor might not look like advertising/spam to the admin or editor reviewing the tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with @Liz on if it looks like PROD or AFD would be a more suitable form of deletion. If an article meets the speedy deletion criteria the community has decided by consensus that it doesn't want to spend more of its time and instead prefers a lighterweight process. This is separate from "this article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, but may be appropriately deleted via PROD or AfD" as is the case for many A7 declines, for instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, well: WP:NOTBURO. And I note it was speedily deleted all the same. Which somewhat exonerates TimothyBlue. It also confirms the view that if admins are to be allowed to decide what is/is not to be deleted or kept, they should have some article-writing experience first. ——Serial Number 54129 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 to what Clover wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I saw the original note here and went to check on the article. It was a mess (such language! as @TimothyBlue: had noted) which I first tried to clean up and then, searching for references, found that there really was no there, there. So I sent it to AFD. Unanimous !votes to delete, including those who were in favour of it being speedied. In the end, it was deleted. Kind of wish Timothy had had a bit of a thicker skin, because they were right in essence after all, and I hope they choose to come back to NPP. After all, I think one needs the hide of a rhinoceros and the heart of a dove to stick around here for any length of time. Alls well that ends, I suppose. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio reminder

I've just added a line to the NPP instructions that reminds patrollers to check the original language with Earwig, if an article is or may be a translation. If you only check the en-wiki version, you will likely not notice the copyright violation. Translated copyvio is still copyvio! -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

yes its a good line to add--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Good reminder! I’ve seen more and more translations lately. Zsinj^Talk 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, Earwig won't check stuff like Google books or Internet Archive (books or websites). I've seen quite a few copyvios from those sources being let through recently, even some with obvious text formatting issues that should have been a red flag. For example, words with hyphens in the middle where there aren't normally hyphens is a clear sign that the text was copied from a digital scan of a book. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple of article info viewing questions

Is there a way to make the curation toolbar show up on a reviewed article? (for example in order to see/use the "metadata" button)

There is one way I know to find a previous deletion discussion for certain cases. Which is to hit the "previously deleted" button on the page feed. But that only works if it's in the new page feed and then sometimes doesn't work then (e.g. As-Salam al-Amiri (Kuwait) even though it says "previously deleted". Is there a general way to see previous deletion discussions? North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a link titled "Add to the New Pages Feed" in the tools section on the left of the page. That should do the trick and make the page curation bar show up. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI, it also unreviews the article. So only do that if you want to unreview the article. I don't think there's currently a way to display the toolbar on a reviewed article that has fallen out of the feed. For example, if you wanted to place maintenance tags.

For the use case of previous deletions, I like the user scripts User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js (adds "prev del" and "prev afd" links by the article title if found) and User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectG4G5.js (displays alerts at the top of the page if it's a likely CSD G4 or G5 candidate). I also make the deletionFinder notifications more red using the code in User:Novem Linguae/common.css, line 1. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I did see that and presumed that it unreviewed the article. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-attributed translations

Just a reminder to check for non-attributed translations when reviewing, especially on longer articles. They are more common than you might think. Wikidata and Google are very helpful for checking if an article in another language exists. If there is an article on another Wikipedia, you can use Google Translate to see if the content matches the English article. If it does, add an edit summary attribution (similar to this one: Content in this edit is translated from the existing LANGUAGE Wikipedia article at code:Exact name of article; see its history for attribution.) and warn the translator with {{uw-translation}}. If the content translated makes up a significant portion of the new article, consider adding {{Translated page|language code|article name}} to the talk page. C F A 💬 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda Thanks for pointing this out. I would go as far as saying that, major problems warranting CSD or DRAFTIFY aside, this is the main issue I flag at NPP. Perhaps a button to easily address the issue (dummy edit to provide attribution + {{translated page}} in talk page + inform the editor of the violation) should be included in the Page Curation tool? Broc (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Besides notability issues, non-attributed translations are the most common problem I encounter during reviews. It's actually very time-consuming to check if an alternate-language article exists, if the English version is a non-attributed translation, then add the dummy edit, warn the user, and add the notice to the talk page. I assume this is why a lot of NPP reviewers often skip this step and a lot of translations go unnoticed. I would support an addition to Page Curation but someone is probably better off building a user script (like MoveToDraft) since tool changes are much more complicated to implement. C F A 💬 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a starter version at User:Clearfrienda/scripts/AttributeTranslation. Less work than I thought, actually. Courtesy ping: Broc if you're interested. C F A 💬 02:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that script - works like a dream! Josey Wales ^Parley 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this section. Technically, the text snippet given above (as described at WP:TFOLWP) is appropriate for use as an edit summary only in the same edit which adds translated text to the article. When missing attribution is discovered later, then the instructions and model text to use can be found at WP:RIA. Further, if you don't have time or don't wish to add the missing attribution yourself or are unable to because it's not clear where the content was translated from, you can flag the article with {{Unattributed translation}}. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"experience moving pages"

Would anyone complain if I removed "Have experience moving pages in accordance with relevant guidelines" from WP:NPPCRITERIA? Experience with page moves certainly doesn't hurt, but most NPP-related titling issues are straightforward enough to be learned on the job, and it's not like WP:PERM/NPP requests are being declined as "not done; not enough experience moving pages". I certainly wouldn't want otherwise qualified editors to think they have to go spend a month or two at WP:RM before applying. (The criterion was apparently just copied from the page mover criteria, so I'm not sure how much thought went into it in the first place.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: I've long said I don't use this as a criteria when evaluating whether to grant someone the permission or not. I look to make sure they're not making moronic moves, but I don't expect everybody to have all of the naming conventions memorized. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support not necessary to be a good patroller (t · c) buidhe 12:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Support good to have but a newcomer can still function without it Josey Wales ^Parley 14:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support The learning curve is manageable. There's no issue as long as applicants don't a track record of questionable/consensus-violating moves. ^Complex/_Rational 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support Unnecessary hurdle and unnecessarily adds to "I'm not worthy" concerns/stress. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Confirm that this almost put me off of requesting NPP permission when I first looked into it. Doesn't seem necessary to do good work here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed it. If anyone thinks further discussion is necessary, feel free to revert. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard cases

Is there a board/list for "hard" or "problematic" patrol cases that might require more eyes/more time to get to a consensus and get properly fixed up. Examples being Sergii Ivanov and Volodymyr Petrov (same creator), which are well created BLPs but filled with more challenging references/sources, and with some very tilted language. I don't feel that just tagging them is enough here? Or do I use the general noticeboards? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for calling this out. I left some notes on the creator's talk page at User talk:Zwyntar na boloti. There are also a large number of Facebook and YouTube sources, which can easily be seen with a citation highlighter userscript. Since this is a BLP, we should probably delete all the Facebook and YouTube citations and their associated text before we make any other decisions about the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Great thanks Novem Linguae. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao

I have just blocked Umakant Bhalerao, a reviewer since 2020, for undisclosed paid editing. Admins are welcome to email me for evidence, but the short version is that Umakant Bhalerao was marking articles about Indian corporations and businesspeople as reviewed in a way that made clear there was illegitimate coördination going on. The vast majority of his reviews are fine, but the ones in that topic area would definitely benefit from a second look. I've made a partial list of such articles at User:Extraordinary Writ/Articles to review; I don't know if we want to go over them individually or just put them back into the queue, but any help would be appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If you're sure about the UPE part, putting them back in the queue is probably the most efficient way to handle it. Then we don't forget to review any, and we spread the re-review workload. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I often saw him reviewing Indian cinema-related articles, and all of those reviews were good. It's disappointing to learn that he was involved in undisclosed paid editing. I will shortly take a look at his reviews. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I recall a recent "scandalous" news article where I believe they were accused of being extremely dubious in a manner I cannot quite recall. I also cannot recall where on enwiki I saw those details. Others may recall. I am reminded that there is no smoke without fire.

Might I suggest that, while each awaits review they be flagged with the {{UPE}} banner? Passing that review will/may allow that banner to be removed.

Putting them back in the queue is annoying, but ideal for efficiency. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to track this down. This may be a breadcrumb trail. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity/Archive#28 May 2022 is one mention: There is another WP:MEAT group led by Umakant Bhalerao, operating similar to DMySon's interests (politics, geography, etc.) and their reviewing style/timecard match hints that they are most probably employed by German Kity company, so listing Umakant Bhalerao and their probable socks Michael_goms, Anthony Masc, Wikibablu, Jessy_lever, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Siddhart_pandey after this and this discussion here. Please do a through checkuser against these accounts and I strongly suspect there are probably many more such accounts (probably with reviewing rights). Balchandra Upendra (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC). I am searching for more. I make no comment upon the content of the allegation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

So far I have failed. I am sure it was in 2024, posted by an IP editor, possibly from a competing UPE group, and linked to a media article. Editors discounted it at the time. I am pretty certain it was to a "noticeboard" in the broadest sense of the word. @Extraordinary Writ, you may have a better recollection than I do? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Getting closer, though from 2022: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190#The unearthing of massive UPE operation. There is also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 165#TamilMirchi from 2020. Neither of these are the one I remember. Someone with a better spade than I have may enjoy the digging! I have run out of time for a couple of weeks. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I had seen the SPI and the COIN post, but I'm not aware of anything beyond that...maybe you're thinking of something else? If you do find it, let me know (or email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org if it involves an off-wiki news story). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ There's something that niggles. The off-will media story names three editors. I just can't find it. Perhaps your colleagues who also answer the paid-en email address can place it? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I thoroughly checked these articles and added some to the queue. I think all the remaining articles on this list should also be added back to the queue for a fresh review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Should NPRs perform a WP:BEFORE search before draftifying

I recently had a disagreement with @Jeraxmoira (at User talk:Jeraxmoira) regarding how a particular review, that of Draft:Takhteshwar_Temple was conducted. I am of the opinion that they should have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and simply tagged the page as needing more sources (or AFDed the page if no reliable sources were found since the article was over a month old). However, Jeraxmoira contends that NPRs are not required to do a BEFORE search before draftifying "unimportant/ low-interest" pages within 90 days. I would like to hear a third opinion/other opinions on this. Is one approach better/the accepted norm over the other? Also, should NPRs conduct a BEFORE search before draftifying pages that have been around in mainspace for a significant amount of time? Sohom (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no hard requirement and, if you think it through, it wouldn't make sense to have one. If a reviewer does a WP:BEFORE-style search for sources, there are two possible outcomes:

1. They find enough sources to support in article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should add the sources to the article
2. They don't find enough sources to support an article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should nominate it for deletion

So either way a WP:BEFORE → draft workflow doesn't make sense.

I do think it's good practice to follow WP:BEFORE if you have doubts about the availability of sources for a topic, but it's far too time-consuming to say NPPers "should" do so. If I have doubts about sourcing but don't have time to follow up on them, I usually tag the article with {{more sources}} and/or {{notability}} and move on, rather than move it to draftspace where it will get less attention, but a lot of people do the latter. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There are more possible outcomes than that, for example if the search uncovers sources which appear to contain signficant coverage of the topic but are not accessible due to paywalls, not in local library holdings, etc then the article should either be kept without adding those sources directly to the article or draftified. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You could still add them as further reading or on the talk page. The point is that if you've established that sufficient sourcing probably exists (albeit behind a paywall or whatever), draftifying it on the basis of sourcing problems would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't add them to the further reading section unless you've actually seen their contents, yes you can go to the talk page but thats not adding it to the article. The point is that there are way more than two possible outcomes, I also don't see how draftifying it if you can't access the sources would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator... That again seems to assume a very limited scope which doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. For example with BLPs draftication can be a nice way to both preserve the privacy of a subject when you aren't sure if they're really notable but also gives people with access to sources time to improve the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't add them to the further reading section unless you've actually seen their contents – sure you can, it's a very common place to stash potential sources for expansion.

I also don't see how draftifying it if you can't access the sources would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator – you dropped my caveat "on the basis of sourcing problems", which is important. What we're discussing here is draftifying for sourcing concerns, in which case yes, there are just two outcomes, described above. If you're moving something for BLP concerns or UPE or whatever WP:BEFORE is not really relevant. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

In which case no there are not just two outcomes... As you already mentioned the editor could add the sources on the talk page but not in the article, so thats at least three and we can come up with more... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So since precision is apparently very important here, the two outcomes I'm referring to are "found enough sources" or "didn't find enough sources". The parts after the dash in both are not the important part. – Joe (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And what about the outcome we spent so long discussing? Where its unclear if enough sources have been found? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's one or the other, your choice, and shouldn't be draftified either way. Thanks for stopping by. – Joe (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

How can it be one or the other unless reviewers are omniscient? "Not sure" is going to be the answer much of the time, I agree that in general draftification isn't ideal... But I'm not sure I would say it shjould never be done by a reviewer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't draftily for notability. If I've already done a before search, there's no use wasting the creator's time improving a non notable article; it should go straight to AfD. if the topic is found to be notable, just poorly sourced, adding a couple good sources and stubbing is less likely to get opposed than drafitifaction. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Draftification, for me, is rarely ever mostly not based on notability. It's about whether a page, in its current state, is fit for main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be a little based on notability? That is if a topic is clearly not notable it should be deleted since no amount of time/improvement would fix that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You know... Maybe I should have thought more before I spoke because there's a level of nuance to it that I ignored in my reply, so thanks for calling me out @Barkeep49. I've tweaked my reply a bit, but I agree with you. Draftification is not a backdoor for deletion and its primary purpose is/should be to give people a place to work on pages with a subject that, with some cleanup or effort, may belong in main space at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

IMO (not that I do it, I work in the "older than three months" part of the cue) it could be based on "non-established" notability rather than notability. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't particularly like to do that myself. I usually stick to draftifying the pages with serious problems that make them unfit for main space and use it for only the most obvious of cases. If the notability is simply unclear and draftification might not be beneficial, I'd rather send it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: (or others) Curious, how would you handle this common case?: Article is less than three months old, is about somebody who would commercially benefit from having an article (artist, performer, band, web personality etc.) , does not meet any SNG criteria, pretty clearly has no or insufficient GNG sources in the article, and a quick web search didn't turn up any. Your first guess is that they won't meet GNG, but it would take a lot of work to confirm that guess. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are many other parameters to be considered even in common cases i.e. COI, UPE, Sock etc., IMO

• (For the above specified case) If there are insufficient GNG sources in the article and I believe they won't meet GNG, I would send it to draft with a custom note pointing to the relevant notability guidelines and asking for more sources (This process cuts down the time of reviewers doing WP:BEFORE rather than the author). If it is moved back to main space without addressing the notability concern, I would check WP:BEFORE and send it to AfD.

Personally, I believe draftification gives the author a second chance before it is sent to AfD and it shouldn't be a big deal because the draftify notice clearly asks the author to move it to mainspace or submit it for review once the draft is ready. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My personal protocol is: If you're confident of COI/UPE, draftify. If there are zero sources, BLPPROD for person, draftify for band/other. Otherwise, WP:BEFORE and then AFD if insufficient sources found. Checking the first page Google News, Google Books, and whatever other searches you feel are appropriate for a WP:BEFORE hopefully wouldn't take longer than a couple minutes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That happens to be my overall protocol as well, since I patrol more back of the queue stuff I have rarely found a use-case for draftifying pages over AFD or just tagging it for improvement. This discussion has been a bit of a eye opener and a primer on how other NPPers handle draftification tho. Sohom (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that a central point of my example is finding a way (= give them feedback and some time) to let the creator to do a deeper search for GNG sources than a NPP'er can do with limited time, where the NPPer's guess is that those sources probably don't exist. And draftifying is one way to do this, another is to tag it and leave an explanatory note and leave it unreviewed to be reviewed at a later date. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I generally don't draftify because I work the older part of the que where it is not an option. But if I did, I would use it for the example I gave. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My response in general for a GNG-dependent article would be the same as Joe Roe's. A few more notes: For a GNG-dependent article IMO an article creator should find GNG sources, and it's more reasonable to expect one of the zillions of article creators to do that work than to say that an overworked NPP'er "should" do that. Draftifying might be one way to set it up for that, so would tagging it which would typically give the creator time to find and add them, or after that time lapse to probably go to AFD if they don't. Regarding this particular article I might have passed it is an edge-case under Ngeo, but that's just me. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the onus on new article creators is to provide sources, particularly to pass WP:GNG. I do think it's perfectly proper to draftify articles with no sources/too few sources/no notability (it's polite to do a quick search, but that's not requirement for 'a full BEFORE') - I've had a number of examples where the creator has worked (in peace) on the draft and it's gone back to mainspace and I have been happy to review those submissions on request to bypass the queue. And that's the process working AFAICS... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with the method Alexanderamcnabb mentions above, that is also the way I would deal with this situation. Josey Wales ^Parley 16:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Me too. That summarizes my posts. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sure a silly question ...

For some reason, I cannot find an explanation of the difference between "Patrolling" and "Page Curation" (for example, as distinguished in Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers). I am sure this is written clearly somewhere but I just cannot find it, and it is bugging me. thanks in advance. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not the first one to be confused by this. The documentation you're looking for is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrol versus review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Aszx5000 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Poor form to patrol drafts I've substantially worked on?

So, I've been working on a project in which I find old drafts that are at risk of being taken to WP:G13 but which I think I have promise, and bringing them to mainspace. When I do so, I mark the articles as patrolled, which the software lets me do, since I didn't start the page. Should I be doing that? Mach61 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

From my experience, as long as you make an edit to the draft within the 6 months, it will be ok. However, if I notice I'm not really working on the draft then it's ok for the page to be deleted. The drafts can always be recovered per WP:REFUND. – The Grid (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a common question at WT:AFC. It's allowed. If you're feeling a bit iffy about the notability, feel free to leave it unmarked to get a second set of eyes. You are a newer patroller, so this might be a good idea for any that would be borderline if taken to AFD, just to make sure that no one can accuse you of anything later. DGG used to patrol the 6 months unsubmitted AFC queue looking for promising drafts. He passed away and the practice mostly stopped, so it's nice to see someone resuming this and rescuing promising drafts :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with this as long as the drafts are actually about notable topics and you clean them up enough to be mainspace-worthy. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A few words about Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah article

The article Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah is not visible on Google. Please take a look at the article. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@ইউনুছ মিঞা It would be helpful to readers of en.wiki if the references showed the titles translated into English using the "trans-title=" parameter. This might make it easier for a new page reviewer to review the article. PamD 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@PamD ok ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@ইউনুছ মিঞা Also note that in English ( at least in UK), a "police station" is a building, not an area. And the lead should tell us what country it is in. PamD 12:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your article is still unreviewed, and it can only be indexed on Google once a New Page Reviewer marks it as reviewed. Please note that unreviewed articles aren’t indexed by search engines for the first 90 days. After that, while the article will still be in our queue to remind us to review it, search engines will start indexing it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer thank you. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It always rings alarm bells when an editors worries that an article is not visible on Google, and I wonder what their motives for writing the article are.

Looking at the article, which appears to be an unattributed machine translation of bn:ফারুকীয়া মদীনাতুল উলুম মাদরাসা, it seems written to promote the school rather than being a neutral article. To put the 100% success rate in examinations into perspective, only 17 students out of 500 - 600 student entered the exams. I'm sure most schools could get a 100% success rate if they only entered a small percentage of students into exams. Most of the content is unreferenced and I doubt there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@John B123 All the information in the Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah article is now correct. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@ইউনুছ মিঞা:, the article still needs citations to verify parts of the text, which are marked with {{citation needed}} tags. --John B123 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A few words about Professor Kamal Uddin Chowdhury College Articles

Professor Kamal Uddin Chowdhury College Article created 3 months ago but not reviewed yet. Please review. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about whether the statement that the institution has 15 toilets is really what our readers need to know. EEng 10:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Some words about Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar) article

The Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar) article has been completed and is requested to be reviewed. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@ইউনুছ মিঞা, thank you for creating these articles. I appreciate your contributions. Just to let you know, there is currently a backlog of 12,739 articles waiting for review. NPRs are working hard to get through them all, and each article is a priority. Therefore, requesting reviews doesn't speed things up, so it's best to avoid doing so. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm Autopatrolled, but please patrol Marc Raymond

No rush. I understand. I used to create a lot of redirects to species synonyms when I was working on insects, so I was given the Autopatrolled right even though I had almost no history of creating articles. An editor asked me to do some copy editing of a translation and after that I moved Marc Raymond to mainspace. It should be patrolled. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey SchreiberBike; per your request, I've marked the article as unreviewed to place it into the queue, and another patroller will be around to review it in time. For future reference, you can use a link in the "Tools" menu to mark an article as unreviewed yourself if you feel that it requires additional attention. Thanks for your vigilance! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike. We wrote a patch recently that lets autopatrolled users unreview their own articles. It should be a link called "Mark this page as unreviewed" in the toolbox, which is in the left menu in Vector 2010. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

BRFA to notify reviewers of AFDs for articles they have patrolled

I've opened a BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SodiumBot 2 to create a bot that will notify reviewers if a article they have reviewed is nominated for AFD. Thoughts, discussion ideas are welcomed. Sohom (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea and, noting @Novem Linguae's comment on the BRFA, I think there should be some way to opt in/out. Personally I would be interested to see any arguments made for deletion for pages I've reviewed, but I can see the side of the discussion against it. It's hard to imagine this runs afoul of any of the canvassing policies but I'd be curious if a note should be left at AfD notifying that the NPPer was notified (it's not like the AfD page indicates that the page creator was notified, but that's already assumed and baked in). I'm curious, are there any stats that show what percentage of pages that are nominated at AfD are reviewed/not reviewed? Would this also monitor redirects at RfD?

Also, is there any idea of a time consideration? I'm trying to think of a case where I would be more or less interested if it is a page I have recently reviewed versus one that is older. Now I'm really getting into the weeds—I doubt this has any factor on the bot's function, just food for thought. Overall, I like the idea. Well done @Sohom. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. I'd like to be aware of AfD nominations for the articles I've reviewed without having to watchlist every article. One technical question: Does the bot account for page moves? That is, will it still generate a notification if an article is moved to a different title after being marked as reviewed? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empty-warn-NPF

Template:Empty-warn-NPF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nickps (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)