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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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", [2] 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)
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)
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)
Thanks! North8000 ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This might seem silly, but where is the "Check for copyvio" link on the NPP toolbar? I haven't been doing patrol for a month but that tool seems to be gone now. Thank you! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 [1]. 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", [2] 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)
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)
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)
Thanks! North8000 ( talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This might seem silly, but where is the "Check for copyvio" link on the NPP toolbar? I haven't been doing patrol for a month but that tool seems to be gone now. Thank you! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)