 | This is an
essay on the workflow for
new page patrol when looking at the oldest articles. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Patrolling the "oldest" articles in the NPP Queue has its own sets of questions and procedures that complement standard NPP workflows. Reviewing articles at the back of the queue is highly important, as many of these articles have already been indexed by Google.
The queue indexes articles based on when the page was originally created, not when it was added to the queue. As a result, if an article from 2006 is converted to a redirect (or vice versa), it will be one of the first things at the back of the queue, despite this triggering edit potentially only having been made a few minutes ago. The actual oldest articles in the queue are farther down. The initial question to answer when reviewing these articles is, "Why is this page appearing in the queue?"
If it's been moved from AfC, draftspace, or userspace follow typical NPP procedures
If it's an article formed from a former redirect
- If the page appears to be the subject of a content dispute between other editors, consider holding off on reviewing it, as previously involved editors may resolve the (likely complex) issue without NPP intervention. Once such a page has been left alone for several days, it's safe to review it without fear of stepping on anyone's toes.
- If the article was accidentally turned into a redirect or vandalized into a redirect and then reverted check for no obvious issues and mark as reviewed.
- And it's been blank for at least 10 minutes restore the redirect
- If it's a new
disambiguation page
- Are there at least two non-redlined articles?
- If not restore redirect
- Fix any elements that violate WP:DABNOT
- Search for topic to ensure no other entries should be added
- Is there a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?
- If there is move page to Page name (disambiguation)
- Can then mark as reviewed
- If it's an article with content follow typical NPP procedures with most likely outcomes going to be marked as reviewed, copying or moving (as appropriate based on page history) to draft space, or restoring redirect. However, if you come across what appears to be good-faith content creation that doesn't meet notability guidelines but is less than a few hours old, consider leaving it be until it's clear that this article may be left in the current state, or raising objections on the talk page or with a maintenance tag instead of restoring a redirect or nominating for deletion.
- If copying/moving to draft space, restore the previous redirect
- If restoring the redirect make sure the recreated redirect is marked as reviewed
If it's been nominated for deletion
- If it's been up for RfD, AfD, or MfD make sure it's been appropriately listed there and marked as reviewed
- If it's a CSD or PROD, only mark as reviewed if you're willing to watchlist and return to patrol if necessary
- Return to article to perform NPP check if CSD or PROD is declined
| This is an
essay on the workflow for
new page patrol when looking at the oldest articles. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Patrolling the "oldest" articles in the NPP Queue has its own sets of questions and procedures that complement standard NPP workflows. Reviewing articles at the back of the queue is highly important, as many of these articles have already been indexed by Google.
The queue indexes articles based on when the page was originally created, not when it was added to the queue. As a result, if an article from 2006 is converted to a redirect (or vice versa), it will be one of the first things at the back of the queue, despite this triggering edit potentially only having been made a few minutes ago. The actual oldest articles in the queue are farther down. The initial question to answer when reviewing these articles is, "Why is this page appearing in the queue?"
If it's been moved from AfC, draftspace, or userspace follow typical NPP procedures
If it's an article formed from a former redirect
- If the page appears to be the subject of a content dispute between other editors, consider holding off on reviewing it, as previously involved editors may resolve the (likely complex) issue without NPP intervention. Once such a page has been left alone for several days, it's safe to review it without fear of stepping on anyone's toes.
- If the article was accidentally turned into a redirect or vandalized into a redirect and then reverted check for no obvious issues and mark as reviewed.
- And it's been blank for at least 10 minutes restore the redirect
- If it's a new
disambiguation page
- Are there at least two non-redlined articles?
- If not restore redirect
- Fix any elements that violate WP:DABNOT
- Search for topic to ensure no other entries should be added
- Is there a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?
- If there is move page to Page name (disambiguation)
- Can then mark as reviewed
- If it's an article with content follow typical NPP procedures with most likely outcomes going to be marked as reviewed, copying or moving (as appropriate based on page history) to draft space, or restoring redirect. However, if you come across what appears to be good-faith content creation that doesn't meet notability guidelines but is less than a few hours old, consider leaving it be until it's clear that this article may be left in the current state, or raising objections on the talk page or with a maintenance tag instead of restoring a redirect or nominating for deletion.
- If copying/moving to draft space, restore the previous redirect
- If restoring the redirect make sure the recreated redirect is marked as reviewed
If it's been nominated for deletion
- If it's been up for RfD, AfD, or MfD make sure it's been appropriately listed there and marked as reviewed
- If it's a CSD or PROD, only mark as reviewed if you're willing to watchlist and return to patrol if necessary
- Return to article to perform NPP check if CSD or PROD is declined