![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is clearly extraneous; and to one user: patronizing, to see the opening paragraph begin and end with platitudes of dutiful Admin mention. They are so clearly forced in place that they remain, in spite of "borne inaccuracies". I'd like to see it re-worked, and am, of course, willing to help. Where am I wrong about this?-- John Cline ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
– Yes, indeed it is, because reviewing needs more knowledge of notability, deletions, and the processing of new articles than even many admins are aware of. Constant monitoring of the process by the coordinators and seeing the questions asked on the reviewers' talk page, has revealed that even after being accorded access to the reviewing tools, many patrollers are still unsure of what to do, or are not 100% native speakers.
While nothing, apart perhaps from graduating from the NPP School, can substitute the tutorial, the coordinators and other very experienced reviewers are actively engaged in making the reviewers' UX more agreeable. After 10 years of deployment of PageTriage, talks are underway with the WMF to update the system in order to meet new challenges. Part of this work also involves not only minor expansions to the tutorial to include better explanations, but also applying the applied linguistics principles of graded reading to the tutorial for the benefit of near-native speakers and newer patrollers. This is being done by experts in their field and is a work in progress. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Care should be exercised when reviewing very new pages. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense for deletion shortly after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for deletion or draftified for an hour after creation and/or the last constructive edit. It is often appropriate to tag problems and allow several hours or days for improvement. Articles must nevertheless be reviewed within 90 days otherwise they will be released for indexing by Google and other search engines whatever state they are in.
PROD/BLPPROD tags can be applied at any time since there is no immediate deletion and these serve to notify the creator of what needs to be fixed. However, it may still be appropriate to not apply these too quickly, especially if there are any signs of ongoing editing. Redirecting a page (or reverting to a prior redirect) is a form of article deletion, so the care described above should be taken before performing these actions as well.
Speedy deletion candidates (CSD). Carefully read through the major speedy deletion criteria. In most cases you can only use the fixed criteria; there is no catchall—so if you are not sure what criterion to use, but are sure the article should be speedied, leave the page for another reviewer. Do not be too hasty to use CSD A1 (no context), CSD A3 (no content), or CSD A7 (no indication of importance for people, animals, organizations, web content, events); per § Care, wait at least an hour to give time to the creator to add content and/or references.
Please do not be too hasty with speedy deletions for "non-egregious" (other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, or complete nonsense), especially those lacking context (
CSD A1) or content (
CSD A3). Writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least an hour to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion. If you see a page that has been tagged too hastily, please notify the tagger about their hasty deletion with {{
subst:uw-hasty}}. The template {{
hasty|placed above existing speedy tag to inform admins to of hasty tagging and to wait}}
can also be added to the tagged article to flag that it was hastily tagged.
Change bullet #3
from: there is no evidence of active improvement, and
to: there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour from last constructive edit), and
After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Minimum deletion time, it was decided to change the front-of-queue patroller waiting period from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
In reference to this edit:
1) I think one of the main benefits of switching from 15 minutes to 1 hour is that we can align most of our guidance to be the same amount of wait time (1 hour). I don't think PROD and BLPPROD are important enough to make exceptions to the one hour rule. I suggest deleting the paragraph that lists these as an exception to the one hour rule.
2) The 1 hour rule is also a big change to current norms, so I suggest making a post about the new rule at WT:NPPR, and possibly also in our newsletter.
3) I suggest deleting "since the last constructive edit". This makes the rule too variable. The rule should be simple to calculate and not require extra clicks to go look at the history and do mental math. It should be one hour from article creation, unless there is an under construction tag. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
last constructiveedit appears to be slightly vague. IMO I would prefer if it's changed to
last edit expanding the article's contentas per suggestions above, or otherwise could relatively minor edits (e.g., adding 200 or 300 bytes but not really adding more references to demonstrate WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, or significantly cleaning up to improve WP:NPOV) count towards this?
What is the purpose of the bot that "reviews" within 15 minutes? Downsize43 ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
A relevant discussion, possibly related to the current backlog drive that NPP has, has occurred on the AfC talk page.
Summarising the thread: An editor was working on splitting content from a dab page inserted by an IP editor when the new page was suddenly draftified. A confusion ensues with the editor thinking that draftification was a special right of AfC reviewers. The confusion has been cleared up with other AfC reviewers chiming in (and also evaluating the state of, what is now, draft). The drafication likely to have happened while conducting NPP reviews.
While the backlog drive is ongoing, I would like to urge NPP reviewers here to hold off dratifying new articles too soon lest we are accused of biting new and old editors alike. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care. How soon is too soon? 15 minutes to an hour according to the linked page. To this end, Novem Linguae has an userscript, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast to highlight articles in the Page Curation tool if they were created one hour ago. – robertsky ( talk) 05:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone,I don’t know if this is the appropriate venue for this but I have read the open letter that was published to WMF,and I think I might have some ideas to improve this process.Right now I was thinking about a page can be opened,where non-NPP people can review the new pages themselves and then can publish their draft of the review there and have an NPP look at it to publish the finalized version.From what I understood from the open letter,a page review is done by only one person.By implementing this we make it a multiple-manned process that takes work off of the already strained NPP’s in theory.We could have some criterias to determine these people obviously,such as being extended confirmed etc.This also can be a good way to get more NPP’s as they also gain experience doing this as from my understanding of the page it’s a hard to get right.I’m open to suggestions. 88.240.155.67 ( talk) 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
All the content currently on this page should probably have been posted to WT:NPPR instead. I can move the archive box over to WT:NPPR as well. OK to redirect? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Most posts at WT:NPPR are by reviewers while most posts here are not. It kinda makes the history easier to peruse and there's nothing that the average NPPer would want here unless it's specifically to discuss the tutorial itself. I don't think it does any harm to leave it here, the page notice and edit notices should be enough - if I were to be ironic though, I would say that anyone who doesn't read page notices or other instructions shouldn't be a reviewer anyway and shouldn't be posting on either talk page, but of course I'm never ironic, am I ? As long as I'm only 'semi-retired', I'm permanently logged in and monitor it several times a day when I'm searching its archives for stuff.
I see there's rules at both WP:DRAFTIFY for "During new page review" and WP:NPPDRAFT. Why are they seemingly repeated, isn't there a danger they'll go out of sync? Seems to me would be easier to not duplicate them and just rely on one linking to the other. (I already mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Remind me again, please, but that probably wasn't the right venue.) - Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
See this RfC clarifying whether editors without the new page reviewer user right may patrol new pages (in the sense of cleanup tags and deletion nominations). ~ Rob13 Talk 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for such naive question but I can not find any option in my curation toolbar which will let me move a page from mainspace to draft. Can someone please help me with this? Thank you, Mr RD 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't patrol pages everyday. Still on an average, always I managed to find 5-7 WP:FAILN articles, some of which were completely spam. Nobody noticed them. I am giving only few examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamanti (Company), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bishop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Teja Nath.
Almost all of my AFDs and prodded articles were nominated weeks after article creation. Inspite of having many patrollers these articles don't get noticed, and no one will ever find them.
Sometimes notable articles are tagged as "This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", as the article is unsourced.
Some WP:FAILN articles with fake references and blogs as reference, twitter, facebook and youtube pages as reference, which actually have zero notability, are not tagged with notability concerns or nominated for deletion. As I found with Rebecca-Maria-Euphemia Castranova, Tan Songyun.
While notable articles are sent to AFD, as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess and the Pony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Heal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roop Kumar Rathod. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The edit notice on this page says: "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Where do we expect general discussion of the New pages patrol process to take place? You will see from above that there are a number of editors with questions on the process. Perhaps the discussion of the tutorial ought to be moved to a talk page specifically named for that topic? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a pending RFC at the Village Pump (proposals) to require a 30 minute delay after article creation before tagging an article for deletion under A7 and perhaps other criteria. Individuals interested in that topic should opine there. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
WT:NPR
|
---|
Now we have 15500 and it is steadily growing for the whole month. I think we never had it below 12000.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Just letting you guys know that I posted a notice here ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Edit-a-thon) that may interest reviewers. Summing it up, University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to create pages on Wikipedia and are attending a talk/workshop/edit-a-thon with Dr. Connie Crompton today. I know someone who works there and just told me about it so thought I would let you all know. Hope this helps -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to give a heads-up on some work the Foundation has been doing on this issue. A bunch of us got together at the Vienna hackathon and started working on some data collection and analysis around the issue of the growing NPP backlog, particularly around the potential effectiveness of the proposal to limit page creation to auto-confirmed users.
We should have a report early next week with this and other data, along with some analysis and potential next steps. We are looking forward to getting your feedback on this and identifying ways the WMF can support the community here. TNegrin (WMF) ( talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I rarely use new pages feed. When i opened it today, at the top of the list were USS JFK, USS Kitty Hawk, and USS Constellation. I skimmed a little through their history, nothing was out of the ordinary that caught my eye. I dont think these articles were renamed/moved. I am curious why they showed up on top of the list. And no, i had not selected "oldest" filter. Can somebody explain please? —usernamekiran (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
There were a snazzy backlog defcon template here like over at WP:Reviewing pending changes. Pariah24 ( talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me start by saying I'm deeply grateful to the NPP community. I'm honestly baffled how the content on the project page can be considered a tutorial. Here are some examples of comprehensible tutorials:
They are built around step-by-step instructions, examples / a specific case study, and a minimum of jargon. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I have yet another issue with the way that the Reviewed flag is set almost automatically as soon as a reviewer looks at a page. See the history of Todd Lumley. The actions taken by the reviewer, User:Reddogsix, were quite appropriately to add tags to the article. It does not appear that Reddogsix ever did anything that was meant to mark the article as ready to be indexed for Google. However, the article is now indexed by Google. It appears that almost anything short of a deletion tag causes an article to be marked as reviewed and so available to be found by Google. Should I be reporting this somewhere else? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
When drafts move to article space, do they show up in Special:NewPagesFeed? Is there an easy way I can make sure CSDable pages don't slip into article space? Cheers, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The practice of unilateral draftification could use clarification and guidance. Note:
This proposal for guidance follows up from discussions at:
I propose, as a draft to be modified/improved, that guidance for draftification should be:
A page in mainspace may be moved to draft if all of the following are true:
Expanding on the above:
Has some merit
Not good enough
And no evidence of active support
Qualifications and responsibilities of the draftifier. To unilaterally draftify, you should:
Advice for the authors of draftified pages:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You obviously put a lot of thought into this, but there are too many steps and rules to remember and interpret. The Wikilawyers will turn this kind of a checklist into a weapon of harassment. The pages that get moved to draft are generally quite new ones that have some major flaw, but where deleting them is too harsh. On the rare occasion I've sent a page to Draft I immediately use the AFCH tool to request a review on behalf of the creator. I may then do the review or leave a comment of explanation and let someone else review. This is a lot friendlier message to the often newer editor then DELETE, tells them where their page went, and how to fix it. Some new editors get an AfD or PROD notice and post on my talk page that the page is already deleted. At Draft we can guide them through fixing the problems. Legacypac ( talk) 06:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: I closed the RFC you mention as 'no consensus', and I clearly stated that in big block letters at the top of the result box. I said there were too many answers of 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', and so forth, not that those widely differing answers were any kind of result. The RFC was poorly formed, and I suggested a new one. You should modify your statement. Katie talk 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is good guidance. It reflects pretty much what I do when patrolling. Perhaps it would helpful to make it clear that it is a guideline to be used with common sense, and not a set of rules. - Mr X 12:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I partly disagree. In particular, I disagree as to point 3, that there must be no active evidence of improvement. The pages that I think should be draftified are pages that are new in the NPP queue, and typically have "holes", such as blank sections (e.g., "Career" is empty). These pages should be draftified, not because there is no active evidence of improvement, but because there is an obvious need for improvement, in that, in their current condition, they could be speedied. Insisting that there be no active evidence of improvement will leave these placeholders in article space for a few hours until a less patient patroller applies A7. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to the initial post: a missing section is not a valid reason to speedy, unless it leaves out the basic claim of significance -- which of course it might do. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 12:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If an article was recently created, and the creator might plausibly be in the process of adding some or all of the missing pieces, esp if the creator has been editing in small chunks, then draftification might well be a form of WP:BITE and should be delayed for at least an hour. This might fir with the "active editing" requirement above. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
A large majority of all the articles in mainspace are "deficient". The project-wide for consensus is, and has been for many years, that unless an article is unsalvageable, we leave it there (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy). If we're not willing to do the work ourselves, we tag them for improvement and hope somebody will one day. This is a policy: WP:PERFECTION. So I see at least two more options that are less bitey than booting an article back to draft: 1. improving it yourself; 2. tagging it and leaving it in mainspace.
I find this trend towards draftifying articles that aren't deletion-worthy but aren't "good enough" (a vague and subjective standard) very worrying. Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back; these rest probably no . I see 90% becoming abandoned, which makes this a form of "soft" deletion with none of the strict criteria, discussion or oversight that the community has insisted every other deletion process must have. – Joe ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, currently, new pages are NOINDEX'd (i.e. they do not show up for Google et. al.) until they get patrolled OR 90 days have gone by. The rationale is (I think) to remove an incentive to spammers/SEO/vanity pages etc., and protect our readers from such. But then, why is there a timeout, or rather, where/when was that limit decided?
One would assume this is due to a compromise between competing goals either in policy or on the technical side but I cannot find it. What little I could find on the topic is from 2012 in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX, where some opponents argued (rough summary) that more eyes on poor articles is a good thing because it leads to improvement. Yet, one could argue that the stream of new pages has changed significantly since then. When I used to patrol new pages, a good 25 to 50% of pages were COI-created going the full scale from "could be a notable company, though the article is promotional" and "a 13-year-old musician with a Youtube channel". Tigraan Click here to contact me 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if the new pages feed had a date filter (before after or between). Also, given the number of pages per day, being able to specify am/pm or the hour (1-24 in a dropdown) would be a benefit. It would simplify working through the list IMO if it isn't already available. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
User:TonyBallioni, thankyou for the feedback. I had a look there. I would endorse the idea of a popup calendar per what I read there. What I didn't see there was the idea of adding a time as well. I haven't programmed for years but I would have thought there would be programming tools (templates)that reduced programming a calendar popup to a single line or two, so all up, it would only be a half-dozen lines of code? Rehards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
did not know not autoconfirmed's could do that. Special:Contributions/Mr._Banafea.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking the blindingly obvious, but is there a simple page or section, with a memorable shortcut, which succinctly explains (to new editors) what WP:NPP is all about? I ask from the perspective of a Teahouse host where I and others regularly find ourselves having to explain why pages don't appear in search engine results, or what happens if they create a new page themselves instead of going through WP:AFC. I always find myself linking to WP:NPP but, right from the outset, that destination page uses a tone of voice clearly aimed only at those interested in participating in the process. There is no introductory "About" section to give a quick overview for those who simply want to know what New Page Reviewing means. So, unless there is a better link someone can give me, would a slight tweak to the WP:NPP page benefit both types of audience? Here's my suggestion:
You'll note I've swapped around deletion and notability guidelines, as I felt that notability really should come first, followed by deletion. Otherwise it sounds like we shoot first and ask questions afterwards. I've also moved the 'thank you for your interest' right to the end of the paragraph, which I hope balances out the paragraph for those two very different types of audience. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled with this section WP:NPP#Other issues. Is there any reason to have such a list of seamingly random bits of advice at the end? Most of it is either already discussed in the body (like what to do with unsourced articles or how to tag stubs), or could easily be integrated into a relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I recently added a small section basically explaining that if the curated articles is say Foo (bar), then the reviewer should ensure this article is reachable from Foo. And there was a bit about the potential for considering creating relevant redirects. I thought this was pretty self-explanatorily helpful, and I was really surprised mention of it hadn't been included before. Is that assumed to be common knowledge that doesn't need explicating? The addition was just reverted, with the explanation that changes need to gain consensus here first, so there we go. – Uanfala (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
NPP has enough to do. Adding nav links is an endless imprecise subjective job that happens naturally over time. Wandering off to a dozen pages to add inbound links goes far outside the tool used to do NPP and will just lead to more backlog. Again, you don't have a good handle on the workflow and should leave instruction writing to more experienced people in this area. Legacypac ( talk) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
We should label all the gnoming stuff as optional goming activities. It's good but not required of a NPPer because it can be done by non-NPP approved editors who don't need so much knowledge of deletion and notability policy. Legacypac ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 38 § DannyS712 bot 38 DannyS712 ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am learning about new page reviewer requirements, and saw the link for the NPP Browser is not working. Is that only a recent error or is that tool no longer working? --- FULBERT ( talk) 12:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I you don't mind the possible risk, you can access it at http://139.162.191.26/NPP/public/. I found the link at User:Rentier. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The draft section suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace.
Primary AFC acceptance criteria is that the article is unlikely to be deleted at AFD. Based on my AFD experience, I beleive safe to say that an article about "a generally acceptable topic" is still not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. The other policy-based reasons for AFC rejection are severe NPOV and copyvio issues. I beleive NPP articles with these issues are usually disposed through G11 and G12.
My preference is that we strike the Draft option for NPP reviewers. I've been told, without supporting evidence, that moving underdeveloped new articles to Draft space works well. If so, perhaps the advice can be tightened up to mesh better with AFC policy.
Some background discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Move_to_Draft_space_as_an_alternative_to_deletion. Please share your thoughts. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for a discussion of an issue possibly of interest to this project. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 05:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The section was quoted recently at Wikipedia:Help desk by User:SamHolt6. WP:NPP#Conflict of Interest (COI), paid editing states "Paid editors are required to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" This seems to be based on WP:COI which states that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". I suggest that "Paid editors are expected to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" would reflect the wording in WP:COI better. What do NPP users think? TSventon ( talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
When a page says it's been previously deleted, it would be really nice if there was a link to the deletion discussion. Sdkb ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. MyNameIsMars ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest.
Sdkb (
talk)
05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I was considering volunteering, and came to Wikipedia:New pages patrol to learn what my duties would involve. I started reading, and found that I was not absorbing much, because I didn't really know what I was reading about. The page does not start at the beginning.
I am aware of three important tasks done by experienced editors to control the flow of new articles:
There may well be other such tasks that I'm unaware of.
And I don't know which of those this page is about. I see terms "Articles for Creation", "New pages feed", "New pages patrol", "New pages reviewer", "Page feed", etc.; and I don't know how they relate to the tasks listed above. The page needs to explain most of this in its opening section. (Unsigned, because I'm only looking for information, I don't want anyone to lean on me to volunteer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.218.134 ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@ DannyS712, Rosguill, and Barkeep49: To keep this brief, it doesn't make much sense to me to list requests for removal from the redirect whitelist with level two headers as opposed to the level three headers that have been used in the past. I understand that the system for requesting removal from the redirect whitelist should be different from the system for requesting addition to the whitelist, but that is precisely the issue. There are not been any requests for removal from the whitelist, so the procedures have not been thoroughly vetted at this time. This is especially the case due to the fact that there are several requests for removal at once, having a discussion about removal from the redirect whitelist is necessary. It would seem to me that a "Requests for removal" section is warranted at the very least. If removal from the list is expected to be commonplace, then I would suggest making a section for "Requests for addition", accompanied by a "Request for removal". If this is only a one time thing, I see no reason to deviate from the structure and keep the headers at level 2. Finally, an additional option would be to make the removals privately on an unassociated user talk page, which is less than ideal in my opinion, but is effective and keeps the removal on a private basis. Thoughts on how to move forward? This is the first instance of a request for removal from the redirect whitelist, so this should clear the air on future proceedings. Utopes ( talk / cont) 02:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the toolbar not showing up for anyone else? Or is it something I messed up? Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried clicking the link for the NPP Browser and it doesn't seem to be working right now. ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/) Not sure if it's a maintenance window right now or if it's permanently broken, as I haven't used it before. Paradox society 06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Just saw the recent newsletter and wanted to say... great work, everyone. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. E Eng 18:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I found an article on a different topic added to an existing article. Instead of just reverting this one, I split it out into a new article which is now autopatrolled; I can't figure out how to get it back in the queue. MB 16:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I have some suggested improvements for PageTriage (mainly, showing the deletion log of the article) and I'd like to know where to submit these ideas. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently updated
Cite Unseen, a user script that adds icons to citations to denote the nature and reliability of sources. I figure patrollers might find this script useful when it comes to evaluating the sources of new articles. The recent updated added icons to citations that are
editable or from
advocacy organizations, as well as sources from
WP:RSP (
marginally reliable,
generally unreliable,
deprecated, and
blacklisted;
generally reliable is also available, but opt-in). This is in addition to other icon categories, such as state-controlled, opinion pieces, press releases, blogs, and more.
Just note that Cite Unseen is here to provide an initial evaluation of citations and point out potential issues, but it's not the final say on whether or not a source is appropriate for inclusion (see usage for more guidance). ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed a template discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Uw-NPR series, that may perhaps be of interest to editors who work on NPP, so I'm posting this notification. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
When new articles are created by
copying or translating content from other articles or Wikipedias, providing attribution to the original authors is required by Wikipedia's
licensing requirements. I didn't see anything about this requirement on this page, or is it perhaps covered on another page here? (I'm not a page reviewer, and this is my first time here.) No page should successfully pass new page review if it contains unattributed copied or translated content. Adding
User:Diannaa. (please
mention me on reply; thanks!)
Mathglot (
talk)
09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary or on the talk page, you should add {{ Translated from}} to the talk page, and notify the user.– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's important to include something about this, as it is commoner than might be expected even among quite longstanding editors to omit the attribution. Ingratis ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summaryor on the talk page,you should add one to the edit summary. You may use this model:NOTE: The previous edit of 22:31, October 14, 2015, contains content translated from the French Wikipedia page at [[:fr:Exact name of French page]]; see its history for attribution.
This is per Wikipedia's licensing which requires such attribution. For further details, please see WP:RIA.
Hello NPPers, following up on Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I want to volunteer in reviewing articles but am not an admin. How may I go about it Uncle Bash007 ( talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, NPP,
First, I do appreciate all of the work you guys do, it seems around the clock. But just a reminder, it is perfectly okay for an editor to include some limited biographic content about themselves on their User page. You look at long-time editors and some of them have long biographies of themselves on their User page. LARGE amounts of personal content about their interests, their editing philosophy and articles they have worked on.
Right now, I just came across a User page from a brand new account who had made just one edit, that had this content on his User page: His name and his occupation. That was all. No social media accounts, no links to a website, just his name and what he did for a living. Of course, this is the first thing a new editor would do when registering for a new platform, they identify themselves. This is not what CSD U5 is for, it is for webhosting content that is unsuitable for this project, like detailed information about someone's fantasy football league or a chapter of a novel someone is trying to write. Putting a limited amount of biographic content on one's User page is permitted. If it becomes a lengthy resume or CV, that's fine to tag for deletion but just a name? I've seen User pages with just a name on it tagged for deletion before and I can't think of a more unwelcome gesture to make to a brand new editor than to delete a User page with only their name on it (including talk page warnings about this, too).
While you folks are the vanguard for helping to remove unsuitable content added to the project, you are also often the first experienced editor a newly registered account encounters so please, unless they are a vandal or promoting themselves, try to make it a positive experience. Thank you all, you are great editors, and have a pleasant holiday season! Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
for general discussion about NPP? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, NPPers,
It looks like there is a missing </div> at the end of the newsletter post so that any subsequent messages on the user talk page appear to be part of the newsletter. Just thought I'd point this out so it's not forgotten in future issues. Thanks and I hope you are having a productive and healthy 2023! Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently this talk page doesn't get much traffic so I'm not sure if anyone will see this message. I just thought I'd notify y'all, if you haven't noticed, that in the U.S. we are getting to the end of a school term and I'm seeing a lot of students moving their sandboxes into the main space of the project. Often, they still have sandbox tags on them or reviewer notices. Sometimes they are just moved to "User:Article title" instead of into main space. But most are clearly not ready in any way for main space or "cleaned up".
I just wanted to encourage you, should you come across them, to move them to Draft space, or even back to User space rather than tagging them for deletion. These pages are often abandoned after the school term is over (although I have seen some of them turned into decent articles) but it would be better for the editor if they were moved to Draft or User space rather than straight-out deleted. I realize this is kind of kicking the can down the road but I think the project can handle a little generosity in case these pages need to be reviewed by an instructor to assign a course grade. Thanks everyone for all of the work you do. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is clearly extraneous; and to one user: patronizing, to see the opening paragraph begin and end with platitudes of dutiful Admin mention. They are so clearly forced in place that they remain, in spite of "borne inaccuracies". I'd like to see it re-worked, and am, of course, willing to help. Where am I wrong about this?-- John Cline ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
– Yes, indeed it is, because reviewing needs more knowledge of notability, deletions, and the processing of new articles than even many admins are aware of. Constant monitoring of the process by the coordinators and seeing the questions asked on the reviewers' talk page, has revealed that even after being accorded access to the reviewing tools, many patrollers are still unsure of what to do, or are not 100% native speakers.
While nothing, apart perhaps from graduating from the NPP School, can substitute the tutorial, the coordinators and other very experienced reviewers are actively engaged in making the reviewers' UX more agreeable. After 10 years of deployment of PageTriage, talks are underway with the WMF to update the system in order to meet new challenges. Part of this work also involves not only minor expansions to the tutorial to include better explanations, but also applying the applied linguistics principles of graded reading to the tutorial for the benefit of near-native speakers and newer patrollers. This is being done by experts in their field and is a work in progress. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Care should be exercised when reviewing very new pages. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense for deletion shortly after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for deletion or draftified for an hour after creation and/or the last constructive edit. It is often appropriate to tag problems and allow several hours or days for improvement. Articles must nevertheless be reviewed within 90 days otherwise they will be released for indexing by Google and other search engines whatever state they are in.
PROD/BLPPROD tags can be applied at any time since there is no immediate deletion and these serve to notify the creator of what needs to be fixed. However, it may still be appropriate to not apply these too quickly, especially if there are any signs of ongoing editing. Redirecting a page (or reverting to a prior redirect) is a form of article deletion, so the care described above should be taken before performing these actions as well.
Speedy deletion candidates (CSD). Carefully read through the major speedy deletion criteria. In most cases you can only use the fixed criteria; there is no catchall—so if you are not sure what criterion to use, but are sure the article should be speedied, leave the page for another reviewer. Do not be too hasty to use CSD A1 (no context), CSD A3 (no content), or CSD A7 (no indication of importance for people, animals, organizations, web content, events); per § Care, wait at least an hour to give time to the creator to add content and/or references.
Please do not be too hasty with speedy deletions for "non-egregious" (other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, or complete nonsense), especially those lacking context (
CSD A1) or content (
CSD A3). Writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least an hour to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion. If you see a page that has been tagged too hastily, please notify the tagger about their hasty deletion with {{
subst:uw-hasty}}. The template {{
hasty|placed above existing speedy tag to inform admins to of hasty tagging and to wait}}
can also be added to the tagged article to flag that it was hastily tagged.
Change bullet #3
from: there is no evidence of active improvement, and
to: there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour from last constructive edit), and
After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Minimum deletion time, it was decided to change the front-of-queue patroller waiting period from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
In reference to this edit:
1) I think one of the main benefits of switching from 15 minutes to 1 hour is that we can align most of our guidance to be the same amount of wait time (1 hour). I don't think PROD and BLPPROD are important enough to make exceptions to the one hour rule. I suggest deleting the paragraph that lists these as an exception to the one hour rule.
2) The 1 hour rule is also a big change to current norms, so I suggest making a post about the new rule at WT:NPPR, and possibly also in our newsletter.
3) I suggest deleting "since the last constructive edit". This makes the rule too variable. The rule should be simple to calculate and not require extra clicks to go look at the history and do mental math. It should be one hour from article creation, unless there is an under construction tag. Thoughts? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
last constructiveedit appears to be slightly vague. IMO I would prefer if it's changed to
last edit expanding the article's contentas per suggestions above, or otherwise could relatively minor edits (e.g., adding 200 or 300 bytes but not really adding more references to demonstrate WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, or significantly cleaning up to improve WP:NPOV) count towards this?
What is the purpose of the bot that "reviews" within 15 minutes? Downsize43 ( talk) 06:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
A relevant discussion, possibly related to the current backlog drive that NPP has, has occurred on the AfC talk page.
Summarising the thread: An editor was working on splitting content from a dab page inserted by an IP editor when the new page was suddenly draftified. A confusion ensues with the editor thinking that draftification was a special right of AfC reviewers. The confusion has been cleared up with other AfC reviewers chiming in (and also evaluating the state of, what is now, draft). The drafication likely to have happened while conducting NPP reviews.
While the backlog drive is ongoing, I would like to urge NPP reviewers here to hold off dratifying new articles too soon lest we are accused of biting new and old editors alike. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care. How soon is too soon? 15 minutes to an hour according to the linked page. To this end, Novem Linguae has an userscript, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast to highlight articles in the Page Curation tool if they were created one hour ago. – robertsky ( talk) 05:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone,I don’t know if this is the appropriate venue for this but I have read the open letter that was published to WMF,and I think I might have some ideas to improve this process.Right now I was thinking about a page can be opened,where non-NPP people can review the new pages themselves and then can publish their draft of the review there and have an NPP look at it to publish the finalized version.From what I understood from the open letter,a page review is done by only one person.By implementing this we make it a multiple-manned process that takes work off of the already strained NPP’s in theory.We could have some criterias to determine these people obviously,such as being extended confirmed etc.This also can be a good way to get more NPP’s as they also gain experience doing this as from my understanding of the page it’s a hard to get right.I’m open to suggestions. 88.240.155.67 ( talk) 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
All the content currently on this page should probably have been posted to WT:NPPR instead. I can move the archive box over to WT:NPPR as well. OK to redirect? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Most posts at WT:NPPR are by reviewers while most posts here are not. It kinda makes the history easier to peruse and there's nothing that the average NPPer would want here unless it's specifically to discuss the tutorial itself. I don't think it does any harm to leave it here, the page notice and edit notices should be enough - if I were to be ironic though, I would say that anyone who doesn't read page notices or other instructions shouldn't be a reviewer anyway and shouldn't be posting on either talk page, but of course I'm never ironic, am I ? As long as I'm only 'semi-retired', I'm permanently logged in and monitor it several times a day when I'm searching its archives for stuff.
I see there's rules at both WP:DRAFTIFY for "During new page review" and WP:NPPDRAFT. Why are they seemingly repeated, isn't there a danger they'll go out of sync? Seems to me would be easier to not duplicate them and just rely on one linking to the other. (I already mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Remind me again, please, but that probably wasn't the right venue.) - Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
See this RfC clarifying whether editors without the new page reviewer user right may patrol new pages (in the sense of cleanup tags and deletion nominations). ~ Rob13 Talk 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry for such naive question but I can not find any option in my curation toolbar which will let me move a page from mainspace to draft. Can someone please help me with this? Thank you, Mr RD 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't patrol pages everyday. Still on an average, always I managed to find 5-7 WP:FAILN articles, some of which were completely spam. Nobody noticed them. I am giving only few examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamanti (Company), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bishop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Teja Nath.
Almost all of my AFDs and prodded articles were nominated weeks after article creation. Inspite of having many patrollers these articles don't get noticed, and no one will ever find them.
Sometimes notable articles are tagged as "This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", as the article is unsourced.
Some WP:FAILN articles with fake references and blogs as reference, twitter, facebook and youtube pages as reference, which actually have zero notability, are not tagged with notability concerns or nominated for deletion. As I found with Rebecca-Maria-Euphemia Castranova, Tan Songyun.
While notable articles are sent to AFD, as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess and the Pony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Heal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roop Kumar Rathod. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The edit notice on this page says: "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Where do we expect general discussion of the New pages patrol process to take place? You will see from above that there are a number of editors with questions on the process. Perhaps the discussion of the tutorial ought to be moved to a talk page specifically named for that topic? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a pending RFC at the Village Pump (proposals) to require a 30 minute delay after article creation before tagging an article for deletion under A7 and perhaps other criteria. Individuals interested in that topic should opine there. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc ( tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved to
WT:NPR
|
---|
Now we have 15500 and it is steadily growing for the whole month. I think we never had it below 12000.--
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Just letting you guys know that I posted a notice here ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Edit-a-thon) that may interest reviewers. Summing it up, University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to create pages on Wikipedia and are attending a talk/workshop/edit-a-thon with Dr. Connie Crompton today. I know someone who works there and just told me about it so thought I would let you all know. Hope this helps -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to give a heads-up on some work the Foundation has been doing on this issue. A bunch of us got together at the Vienna hackathon and started working on some data collection and analysis around the issue of the growing NPP backlog, particularly around the potential effectiveness of the proposal to limit page creation to auto-confirmed users.
We should have a report early next week with this and other data, along with some analysis and potential next steps. We are looking forward to getting your feedback on this and identifying ways the WMF can support the community here. TNegrin (WMF) ( talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I rarely use new pages feed. When i opened it today, at the top of the list were USS JFK, USS Kitty Hawk, and USS Constellation. I skimmed a little through their history, nothing was out of the ordinary that caught my eye. I dont think these articles were renamed/moved. I am curious why they showed up on top of the list. And no, i had not selected "oldest" filter. Can somebody explain please? —usernamekiran (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
There were a snazzy backlog defcon template here like over at WP:Reviewing pending changes. Pariah24 ( talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me start by saying I'm deeply grateful to the NPP community. I'm honestly baffled how the content on the project page can be considered a tutorial. Here are some examples of comprehensible tutorials:
They are built around step-by-step instructions, examples / a specific case study, and a minimum of jargon. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I have yet another issue with the way that the Reviewed flag is set almost automatically as soon as a reviewer looks at a page. See the history of Todd Lumley. The actions taken by the reviewer, User:Reddogsix, were quite appropriately to add tags to the article. It does not appear that Reddogsix ever did anything that was meant to mark the article as ready to be indexed for Google. However, the article is now indexed by Google. It appears that almost anything short of a deletion tag causes an article to be marked as reviewed and so available to be found by Google. Should I be reporting this somewhere else? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
When drafts move to article space, do they show up in Special:NewPagesFeed? Is there an easy way I can make sure CSDable pages don't slip into article space? Cheers, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The practice of unilateral draftification could use clarification and guidance. Note:
This proposal for guidance follows up from discussions at:
I propose, as a draft to be modified/improved, that guidance for draftification should be:
A page in mainspace may be moved to draft if all of the following are true:
Expanding on the above:
Has some merit
Not good enough
And no evidence of active support
Qualifications and responsibilities of the draftifier. To unilaterally draftify, you should:
Advice for the authors of draftified pages:
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You obviously put a lot of thought into this, but there are too many steps and rules to remember and interpret. The Wikilawyers will turn this kind of a checklist into a weapon of harassment. The pages that get moved to draft are generally quite new ones that have some major flaw, but where deleting them is too harsh. On the rare occasion I've sent a page to Draft I immediately use the AFCH tool to request a review on behalf of the creator. I may then do the review or leave a comment of explanation and let someone else review. This is a lot friendlier message to the often newer editor then DELETE, tells them where their page went, and how to fix it. Some new editors get an AfD or PROD notice and post on my talk page that the page is already deleted. At Draft we can guide them through fixing the problems. Legacypac ( talk) 06:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@ SmokeyJoe: I closed the RFC you mention as 'no consensus', and I clearly stated that in big block letters at the top of the result box. I said there were too many answers of 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', and so forth, not that those widely differing answers were any kind of result. The RFC was poorly formed, and I suggested a new one. You should modify your statement. Katie talk 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this is good guidance. It reflects pretty much what I do when patrolling. Perhaps it would helpful to make it clear that it is a guideline to be used with common sense, and not a set of rules. - Mr X 12:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I partly disagree. In particular, I disagree as to point 3, that there must be no active evidence of improvement. The pages that I think should be draftified are pages that are new in the NPP queue, and typically have "holes", such as blank sections (e.g., "Career" is empty). These pages should be draftified, not because there is no active evidence of improvement, but because there is an obvious need for improvement, in that, in their current condition, they could be speedied. Insisting that there be no active evidence of improvement will leave these placeholders in article space for a few hours until a less patient patroller applies A7. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
In response to the initial post: a missing section is not a valid reason to speedy, unless it leaves out the basic claim of significance -- which of course it might do. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 12:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If an article was recently created, and the creator might plausibly be in the process of adding some or all of the missing pieces, esp if the creator has been editing in small chunks, then draftification might well be a form of WP:BITE and should be delayed for at least an hour. This might fir with the "active editing" requirement above. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
A large majority of all the articles in mainspace are "deficient". The project-wide for consensus is, and has been for many years, that unless an article is unsalvageable, we leave it there (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy). If we're not willing to do the work ourselves, we tag them for improvement and hope somebody will one day. This is a policy: WP:PERFECTION. So I see at least two more options that are less bitey than booting an article back to draft: 1. improving it yourself; 2. tagging it and leaving it in mainspace.
I find this trend towards draftifying articles that aren't deletion-worthy but aren't "good enough" (a vague and subjective standard) very worrying. Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back; these rest probably no . I see 90% becoming abandoned, which makes this a form of "soft" deletion with none of the strict criteria, discussion or oversight that the community has insisted every other deletion process must have. – Joe ( talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, currently, new pages are NOINDEX'd (i.e. they do not show up for Google et. al.) until they get patrolled OR 90 days have gone by. The rationale is (I think) to remove an incentive to spammers/SEO/vanity pages etc., and protect our readers from such. But then, why is there a timeout, or rather, where/when was that limit decided?
One would assume this is due to a compromise between competing goals either in policy or on the technical side but I cannot find it. What little I could find on the topic is from 2012 in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX, where some opponents argued (rough summary) that more eyes on poor articles is a good thing because it leads to improvement. Yet, one could argue that the stream of new pages has changed significantly since then. When I used to patrol new pages, a good 25 to 50% of pages were COI-created going the full scale from "could be a notable company, though the article is promotional" and "a 13-year-old musician with a Youtube channel". Tigraan Click here to contact me 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if the new pages feed had a date filter (before after or between). Also, given the number of pages per day, being able to specify am/pm or the hour (1-24 in a dropdown) would be a benefit. It would simplify working through the list IMO if it isn't already available. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
User:TonyBallioni, thankyou for the feedback. I had a look there. I would endorse the idea of a popup calendar per what I read there. What I didn't see there was the idea of adding a time as well. I haven't programmed for years but I would have thought there would be programming tools (templates)that reduced programming a calendar popup to a single line or two, so all up, it would only be a half-dozen lines of code? Rehards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 05:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
did not know not autoconfirmed's could do that. Special:Contributions/Mr._Banafea.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking the blindingly obvious, but is there a simple page or section, with a memorable shortcut, which succinctly explains (to new editors) what WP:NPP is all about? I ask from the perspective of a Teahouse host where I and others regularly find ourselves having to explain why pages don't appear in search engine results, or what happens if they create a new page themselves instead of going through WP:AFC. I always find myself linking to WP:NPP but, right from the outset, that destination page uses a tone of voice clearly aimed only at those interested in participating in the process. There is no introductory "About" section to give a quick overview for those who simply want to know what New Page Reviewing means. So, unless there is a better link someone can give me, would a slight tweak to the WP:NPP page benefit both types of audience? Here's my suggestion:
You'll note I've swapped around deletion and notability guidelines, as I felt that notability really should come first, followed by deletion. Otherwise it sounds like we shoot first and ask questions afterwards. I've also moved the 'thank you for your interest' right to the end of the paragraph, which I hope balances out the paragraph for those two very different types of audience. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled with this section WP:NPP#Other issues. Is there any reason to have such a list of seamingly random bits of advice at the end? Most of it is either already discussed in the body (like what to do with unsourced articles or how to tag stubs), or could easily be integrated into a relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I recently added a small section basically explaining that if the curated articles is say Foo (bar), then the reviewer should ensure this article is reachable from Foo. And there was a bit about the potential for considering creating relevant redirects. I thought this was pretty self-explanatorily helpful, and I was really surprised mention of it hadn't been included before. Is that assumed to be common knowledge that doesn't need explicating? The addition was just reverted, with the explanation that changes need to gain consensus here first, so there we go. – Uanfala (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
NPP has enough to do. Adding nav links is an endless imprecise subjective job that happens naturally over time. Wandering off to a dozen pages to add inbound links goes far outside the tool used to do NPP and will just lead to more backlog. Again, you don't have a good handle on the workflow and should leave instruction writing to more experienced people in this area. Legacypac ( talk) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
We should label all the gnoming stuff as optional goming activities. It's good but not required of a NPPer because it can be done by non-NPP approved editors who don't need so much knowledge of deletion and notability policy. Legacypac ( talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 38 § DannyS712 bot 38 DannyS712 ( talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am learning about new page reviewer requirements, and saw the link for the NPP Browser is not working. Is that only a recent error or is that tool no longer working? --- FULBERT ( talk) 12:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I you don't mind the possible risk, you can access it at http://139.162.191.26/NPP/public/. I found the link at User:Rentier. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The draft section suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace.
Primary AFC acceptance criteria is that the article is unlikely to be deleted at AFD. Based on my AFD experience, I beleive safe to say that an article about "a generally acceptable topic" is still not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. The other policy-based reasons for AFC rejection are severe NPOV and copyvio issues. I beleive NPP articles with these issues are usually disposed through G11 and G12.
My preference is that we strike the Draft option for NPP reviewers. I've been told, without supporting evidence, that moving underdeveloped new articles to Draft space works well. If so, perhaps the advice can be tightened up to mesh better with AFC policy.
Some background discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Move_to_Draft_space_as_an_alternative_to_deletion. Please share your thoughts. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for a discussion of an issue possibly of interest to this project. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 05:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The section was quoted recently at Wikipedia:Help desk by User:SamHolt6. WP:NPP#Conflict of Interest (COI), paid editing states "Paid editors are required to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" This seems to be based on WP:COI which states that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". I suggest that "Paid editors are expected to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" would reflect the wording in WP:COI better. What do NPP users think? TSventon ( talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
When a page says it's been previously deleted, it would be really nice if there was a link to the deletion discussion. Sdkb ( talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. MyNameIsMars ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest.
Sdkb (
talk)
05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I was considering volunteering, and came to Wikipedia:New pages patrol to learn what my duties would involve. I started reading, and found that I was not absorbing much, because I didn't really know what I was reading about. The page does not start at the beginning.
I am aware of three important tasks done by experienced editors to control the flow of new articles:
There may well be other such tasks that I'm unaware of.
And I don't know which of those this page is about. I see terms "Articles for Creation", "New pages feed", "New pages patrol", "New pages reviewer", "Page feed", etc.; and I don't know how they relate to the tasks listed above. The page needs to explain most of this in its opening section. (Unsigned, because I'm only looking for information, I don't want anyone to lean on me to volunteer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.218.134 ( talk) 22:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@ DannyS712, Rosguill, and Barkeep49: To keep this brief, it doesn't make much sense to me to list requests for removal from the redirect whitelist with level two headers as opposed to the level three headers that have been used in the past. I understand that the system for requesting removal from the redirect whitelist should be different from the system for requesting addition to the whitelist, but that is precisely the issue. There are not been any requests for removal from the whitelist, so the procedures have not been thoroughly vetted at this time. This is especially the case due to the fact that there are several requests for removal at once, having a discussion about removal from the redirect whitelist is necessary. It would seem to me that a "Requests for removal" section is warranted at the very least. If removal from the list is expected to be commonplace, then I would suggest making a section for "Requests for addition", accompanied by a "Request for removal". If this is only a one time thing, I see no reason to deviate from the structure and keep the headers at level 2. Finally, an additional option would be to make the removals privately on an unassociated user talk page, which is less than ideal in my opinion, but is effective and keeps the removal on a private basis. Thoughts on how to move forward? This is the first instance of a request for removal from the redirect whitelist, so this should clear the air on future proceedings. Utopes ( talk / cont) 02:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the toolbar not showing up for anyone else? Or is it something I messed up? Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried clicking the link for the NPP Browser and it doesn't seem to be working right now. ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/) Not sure if it's a maintenance window right now or if it's permanently broken, as I haven't used it before. Paradox society 06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Just saw the recent newsletter and wanted to say... great work, everyone. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. E Eng 18:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I found an article on a different topic added to an existing article. Instead of just reverting this one, I split it out into a new article which is now autopatrolled; I can't figure out how to get it back in the queue. MB 16:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I have some suggested improvements for PageTriage (mainly, showing the deletion log of the article) and I'd like to know where to submit these ideas. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently updated
Cite Unseen, a user script that adds icons to citations to denote the nature and reliability of sources. I figure patrollers might find this script useful when it comes to evaluating the sources of new articles. The recent updated added icons to citations that are
editable or from
advocacy organizations, as well as sources from
WP:RSP (
marginally reliable,
generally unreliable,
deprecated, and
blacklisted;
generally reliable is also available, but opt-in). This is in addition to other icon categories, such as state-controlled, opinion pieces, press releases, blogs, and more.
Just note that Cite Unseen is here to provide an initial evaluation of citations and point out potential issues, but it's not the final say on whether or not a source is appropriate for inclusion (see usage for more guidance). ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed a template discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Uw-NPR series, that may perhaps be of interest to editors who work on NPP, so I'm posting this notification. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
When new articles are created by
copying or translating content from other articles or Wikipedias, providing attribution to the original authors is required by Wikipedia's
licensing requirements. I didn't see anything about this requirement on this page, or is it perhaps covered on another page here? (I'm not a page reviewer, and this is my first time here.) No page should successfully pass new page review if it contains unattributed copied or translated content. Adding
User:Diannaa. (please
mention me on reply; thanks!)
Mathglot (
talk)
09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary or on the talk page, you should add {{ Translated from}} to the talk page, and notify the user.– Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's important to include something about this, as it is commoner than might be expected even among quite longstanding editors to omit the attribution. Ingratis ( talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summaryor on the talk page,you should add one to the edit summary. You may use this model:NOTE: The previous edit of 22:31, October 14, 2015, contains content translated from the French Wikipedia page at [[:fr:Exact name of French page]]; see its history for attribution.
This is per Wikipedia's licensing which requires such attribution. For further details, please see WP:RIA.
Hello NPPers, following up on Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — xaosflux Talk 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I want to volunteer in reviewing articles but am not an admin. How may I go about it Uncle Bash007 ( talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, NPP,
First, I do appreciate all of the work you guys do, it seems around the clock. But just a reminder, it is perfectly okay for an editor to include some limited biographic content about themselves on their User page. You look at long-time editors and some of them have long biographies of themselves on their User page. LARGE amounts of personal content about their interests, their editing philosophy and articles they have worked on.
Right now, I just came across a User page from a brand new account who had made just one edit, that had this content on his User page: His name and his occupation. That was all. No social media accounts, no links to a website, just his name and what he did for a living. Of course, this is the first thing a new editor would do when registering for a new platform, they identify themselves. This is not what CSD U5 is for, it is for webhosting content that is unsuitable for this project, like detailed information about someone's fantasy football league or a chapter of a novel someone is trying to write. Putting a limited amount of biographic content on one's User page is permitted. If it becomes a lengthy resume or CV, that's fine to tag for deletion but just a name? I've seen User pages with just a name on it tagged for deletion before and I can't think of a more unwelcome gesture to make to a brand new editor than to delete a User page with only their name on it (including talk page warnings about this, too).
While you folks are the vanguard for helping to remove unsuitable content added to the project, you are also often the first experienced editor a newly registered account encounters so please, unless they are a vandal or promoting themselves, try to make it a positive experience. Thank you all, you are great editors, and have a pleasant holiday season! Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
for general discussion about NPP? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, NPPers,
It looks like there is a missing </div> at the end of the newsletter post so that any subsequent messages on the user talk page appear to be part of the newsletter. Just thought I'd point this out so it's not forgotten in future issues. Thanks and I hope you are having a productive and healthy 2023! Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Apparently this talk page doesn't get much traffic so I'm not sure if anyone will see this message. I just thought I'd notify y'all, if you haven't noticed, that in the U.S. we are getting to the end of a school term and I'm seeing a lot of students moving their sandboxes into the main space of the project. Often, they still have sandbox tags on them or reviewer notices. Sometimes they are just moved to "User:Article title" instead of into main space. But most are clearly not ready in any way for main space or "cleaned up".
I just wanted to encourage you, should you come across them, to move them to Draft space, or even back to User space rather than tagging them for deletion. These pages are often abandoned after the school term is over (although I have seen some of them turned into decent articles) but it would be better for the editor if they were moved to Draft or User space rather than straight-out deleted. I realize this is kind of kicking the can down the road but I think the project can handle a little generosity in case these pages need to be reviewed by an instructor to assign a course grade. Thanks everyone for all of the work you do. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)