Tutorial | Discussion |
New page feed |
Reviewers |
Curation tool Suggestions |
Coordination |
This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server ( invite link) For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies. For discussion on topics purely relevant to coordination tasks, such as for example - but not only - Backlog Drives, etc., please post at Coordination Talk |
Top New Page Reviewers database report (updated by bot 2x daily) |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present. |
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
Do you find Novem Linguae's File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?
Do you find Insertcleverphrasehere's File:NPP flowchart.svg useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?
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. Pam D 13:20, 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)
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)
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)
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 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: [1]. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
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)
{{ 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)
<!-- 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 anyoneThis 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)
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)
OK - thanks all - that's v helpful. Best, Ingratis ( talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
502 Bad Gateway.
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.
{"status": "error", "error": {"code": "search_error", "info": "An error occurred while using the search engine; try reloading or setting 'use_engine' to 0"}}.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hilst
[talk]
10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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, I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [2]. 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", [3] 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)
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)
Tutorial | Discussion |
New page feed |
Reviewers |
Curation tool Suggestions |
Coordination |
This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server ( invite link) For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies. For discussion on topics purely relevant to coordination tasks, such as for example - but not only - Backlog Drives, etc., please post at Coordination Talk |
Top New Page Reviewers database report (updated by bot 2x daily) |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present. |
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
Do you find Novem Linguae's File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?
Do you find Insertcleverphrasehere's File:NPP flowchart.svg useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?
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. Pam D 13:20, 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)
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)
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)
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 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: [1]. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
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)
{{ 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)
<!-- 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 anyoneThis 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)
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)
OK - thanks all - that's v helpful. Best, Ingratis ( talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
502 Bad Gateway.
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.
{"status": "error", "error": {"code": "search_error", "info": "An error occurred while using the search engine; try reloading or setting 'use_engine' to 0"}}.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hilst
[talk]
10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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, I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [2]. 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", [3] 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)
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)