![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I have another example of the accidental indexing phenomenon. This phenomenon, which I have to assume is a misfeature and not a feature, is likely to be taken advantage of by spammers to get their pages out on Google. The page Www.rkriponkhan.com was created with no content. It was promptly tagged for WP:A3. User:Bbb23 then pulled the A3 tag with the note not to apply the A1 or A3 tags for 10 or 15 minutes. The page was then listed in the New Page Patrol list with a green check mark. That is, it was listed as having been reviewed. I am sure that untagging administrator Bbb23 did not mean to be reviewing the page, only tagging it as not yet ready to be deleted as an empty page. As I have been realizing, New Page creation appears to be a system that is designed primarily to speed up the indexing of pages by Google, with a few checks on hasty indexing by Google, but the checks are all afterthoughts that do not work very well. Quick indexing of pages by Google works very well and very fast, and the various checks on it sometimes manage to work for a little while, but have cracks that crud falls through either by accident or on purpose. In this specific case, can the tagging be fixed so that just removing a speedy tag doesn't constitute an approval of the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody understand what I am trying to explain? I get the feeling that I am explaining into a vacuum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>
in the head. tagging for CSD, reviewing, unreviewing, retagging, and re-reviewing does not have any effect on the noindex status. Is it possible the resident Google bot ignores the noindex directive?-
Mr
X
15:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I had been hesitant to go into great detail as to what the exact problematic sequence of steps is, but I think that the spammers know the exact sequence as well as we do, so that there WP:BEANS doesn't apply and there is no benefit in avoiding saying what is going on. The unintended review occurs in the following situation:
If Editor D marks Article X as unreviewed before Google indexes it, the article isn't indexed. Likewise, if Editor C marks the article as unreviewed at the same time as they pull the deletion template, the article won't be indexed, but that is dependent on Editor C being a knowledgeable NPP reviewer who understands what is going on and wants to leave the indexing decision to yet another reviewer. However. otherwise, the tagging and untagging for speedy deletion has the effect of indexing the article. Editor C (or Editor A, since spammers don't care about the rule against an article-author untagging it) is, in effect, indexing the article. It doesn't take a real reviewer. That is the problematic sequence. Comments? In the cases we have seen, the article does eventually get deleted. But in the cases we haven't seen, the article gets indexed, and no one notices except the spammer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
We're below 20,000 for the first time in a while (at the time of writing, at least). Well done, everyone! Boleyn ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran Special:NewPagesFeed, right-hand corner above the newest/oldest options.
Personally I do rejoice to see it going steadily, though very, very slowly, down. Yes, there's still a big issue and other solutions need looking at as most people agree, but I don't think ther's anything I can personally do about that. However, acknowledging the achievements of people working hard on this project is important too, and editors' hard work has helped. I find the doom and gloom on this page affects my morale and ability to keep working on it. I hoped pointing out asmall positive might be encouraging. Boleyn ( talk) 05:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There are advertisement on enwiki like "Wikipedia loves uniforms" submit photos of Indian law, and enforcement forces, and win prizes. There is one more ad currently going on about photos of heritage sites. Why cant there be a "notice" similar to these ads regarding NPP/R? Describing wikipedia needs reviewers? pinging @ Kudpung, Kaldari, MusikAnimal, and DannyH (WMF): —usernamekiran (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but the WMF has agreed to ACTRIAL in principle. You are invited to join the discussion on WT:NPPAFC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The request for the notice/banner/advertisement can be found here:
link to meta
—usernamekiran
(talk)
19:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Usernamekiran, I think that's a positive step. I know I had no idea you could nominate yourself as a patroller, or even really that pages were patrolled systematically, until I was given the right. There are lots of people who would be very good reviewers who could be recruited. Boleyn ( talk) 19:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The statement was made a week ago, by an administrator and functionary, "Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. It is essential to retain them, but at least 80% of those who have their first article rejected quite understandably never return." What I would like to know, and I think some other editors would like to know, is a two-part question about the new editors. First, was that statement meant to refer to all new editors, or specifically to new editors whose first major contribution is a new article? If it is meant to refer to all new editors, then maybe it is outside the scope of this page, but, since it refers to rejection, it appears to apply to those who contribute an article (or occasionally group of articles). Second, is the statement that they come to contribute to the encyclopedia based on empirical knowledge, or is it a statement of belief? I am aware that it is an article of belief that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. I do not have a whole lot of evidence with regard to those who throw an article over the fence, but perhaps I have a lack of faith, or have not seen the right metrics, or am looking in the wrong way or wrong place.
If it is empirically true that they come to contribute to the encyclopedia, and we are losing a large potential resource, then it is important to know that this is empirically true. First, in that case, we need a volunteer corps of meeters and greeters to supplement New Page Patrol. (Just dumping on New Page Patrol for not being sufficiently welcoming to editors who contribute crud will only burn them out, although dumping on the existing volunteers is very much the Wikipedia way.) Second, if they really do come to contribute to the encyclopedia, maybe WMF can actually figure out some way to engage them to further increase our meaningless metrics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have been reviewing new articles for a few days (thanks Kudpung for granting me the right) and made an observation.
A few months ago DrStrauss asked about a way to sort users by number of unreviewed pages. I created a script that generates such list, see User:Rentier/NPP. Listed below are aggregate numbers.
Unreviewed Articles | Editors | Articles | Backlog fraction |
---|---|---|---|
>50 | 10 | 650 | 3% |
>20 | 56 | 1996 | 10% |
>10 | 207 | 4108 | 21% |
>5 | 529 | 6450 | 32% |
>2 | 1434 | 9759 | 49% |
- | 10228 | 19851 | 100% |
Generated: 2017-06-29 15:20:58 UTC |
One fifth of the backlog can be removed by reviewing articles created by just 207 (2%) most prolific editors. Since articles created by the same user tend to be of similar quality, I think that reviewing is made much more efficient by grouping the reviews by user rather than just going through the list chronologically.
Rentier ( talk) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there some way to find how many articles/pages were reviewed in June? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran
(talk)
12:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I recently came across an article of a non-notable Bollywood song. The creator is A-PAT, and more than 90% of articles created by him are not notable. Most of the sources used are dependant of subject. I wanted a second opinion of an experienced user. Would somebody please look at it? X seems to be online. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I selected the name, clicked "search on google", then moved the article to Angira Dhar from Angira dhar, I skimmed through the sources (then closed the tabs); edited the article, and then marked it as reviewed. When I opened the google tab, I saw the first result was her wikipedia article. ie: The article was already indexed by google before it was reviewed. It was created on 13 June 2017, and reviewed just a few minutes ago from now. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I was under the impression that, unless the creator had the "autopatrolled" right, any articles newly moved from AfC into Main space would not be indexed until reviewed by someone here. But the above-named article, moved into Main space just a few hours ago, is already showing up in a Bing search. And I see no evidence that it has been patrolled. Am I misunderstanding something about the process? Any comments you have will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I made another list, this time grouping the unreviewed articles by keyword. It's a big (ca. 1MB so be careful if you are on a mobile) and ugly list, more of a proof of concept than anything else: User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed_articles_by_keyword. Enjoy Rentier ( talk) 15:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I created a web interface for browsing the backlog - you can filter by any keyword or username and sort the results: http://176.58.102.28/NPP/public/ If it proves useful, I will move it to the Tools Server later. MrX, do you think that an in-wiki list is still worth doing? I can add an "export to wikitable" option quite easily, but the web app is more convenient, at least for me. Rentier ( talk) 00:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rentier, this is so useful, thank you. It loads very slowly on my computer, so I've kept another tab opened and copied and pasted the titles into the searchbox that way. If this could be incorporated into Speacial:NewPagesFeed, and a newsletter go out about it, it might encourage some editors to come back. I've certainly been reviewing more, as I've been able to focus on disambiguation, which I know well, and searching for rivers, where I know the notability criteria well and so I'm able to patrol efficiently. Boleyn ( talk) 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Rentier, I've been using the web tool and it's made my reviewing much easier and I've stayed more motivated and more efficient. Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to create this. Boleyn ( talk) 20:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This one is first from me though:
User:Usernamekiran/Strategies for NPR.
I also created a template to invite worthy editors to become new page reviewers. Worthy has been defined in the essay. —usernamekiran
(talk)
12:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been looking at some of the top-backlogged creators, one of whom has made a large number of album entries for a prolific musician named Steve Roach (musician). The album entries I've checked so far all have zero or one secondary source (and if they have one, it's AllMusic). I reached out to the creator of the those in the backlog to see if they could be improved, but the editor concedes there are no further sources and so the entries don't meet NALBUMS; they made the entries because of a personal view of the worthiness of the artist. As a compromise I was going to suggest this editor make a "Discography of Steve Roach" page if they'd like to preserve track listings...but upon closer examination, I'm not sure the Steve Roach page itself (and thus a related discography) would survive AfD: right now it's very thinly sourced for GNG, and so far I haven't found a single album that has as many as two reviews for NARTIST, although I have not searched exhaustively. It wouldn't make any kind of sense to go through the work of creating a discography page and then redirecting dozens of entries to it if this is just not a topic we have the sources to cover in an encyclopedic manner, and we need to delete the whole. Might someone have a chance to look over the Steve Roach page with an eye toward this issue? Would be grateful for input on how to proceed. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking at these too, Innisfree987, and have been redirecting to artist. New editors often think albums are inherently worthy of inclusion, unfortunately! Thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn ( talk) 20:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally, in the queue of new articles, I will see two articles with almost the same title, and the same or almost the same content. The most recent example is Little Caesar (singer) and Little Ceaser (singer). In these cases, the articles are either the same, or one is slightly longer than the other. My assumption is that in these cases the editor doesn't know how redirects work, and wants to make their information accessible under an alternate title, and so has created a duplicate article. In these cases I have converted one of the two articles, typically the one with the variant spelling, into a redirect. (It is commonly, and correctly, said that redirects are cheap. I would add that storage is cheap, and the problem with duplicate articles is not that they use storage, but that the two articles will get out of sync.) Has anyone else seen this? Do other reviewers agree that if the reviewer notices that there are duplicate articles, one of them should be a redirect (probably because the creator doesn't know about redirects). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, on New Page Patrol, I encounter an article that simply looks and feels like it was published in a journal or in a trade publication. It just doesn't look like it was written for Wikipedia, and looks like it is a polished piece of work, but was polished for a purpose other than Wikipedia. Normally I try to search for phrases in it using Google. Sometimes this works, and that is G12, but usually not. Earwig's copyvio detector is another source. If I don't find the original, my usual action is to tag it with {{copy-paste}}. Is there another reasonable action? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
In one case today, I tagged a page with copy-paste, and it was removed by the author with a comment that it was copied by the copyright author into a new page with a different title. Now that, to me, looks like an acknowledgment precisely that it is copyvio, because Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted material even from the copyright author unless there is a proper release of copyleft. Is that correct? What do I do now, other than re-apply the tag? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: We are doing a push on July 15. If you are experienced in patrolling, we want you. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 17:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there an IRC room or Slack channel or anything that will be going on Saturday? Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a mass message should be sent to all flag holders thanking them, and boasting about stats
Tony?
We can organise another similar event in mid or end of August. This thank you note, and boasting will serve as motivation for everybody. —usernamekiran
(talk)
04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, for some reason I thought I had read it as it was already updating. I think it would be helpful. I have a few other questions, but I'll ask it on the talk page to avoid cluttering this space. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I have another example of the accidental indexing phenomenon. This phenomenon, which I have to assume is a misfeature and not a feature, is likely to be taken advantage of by spammers to get their pages out on Google. The page Www.rkriponkhan.com was created with no content. It was promptly tagged for WP:A3. User:Bbb23 then pulled the A3 tag with the note not to apply the A1 or A3 tags for 10 or 15 minutes. The page was then listed in the New Page Patrol list with a green check mark. That is, it was listed as having been reviewed. I am sure that untagging administrator Bbb23 did not mean to be reviewing the page, only tagging it as not yet ready to be deleted as an empty page. As I have been realizing, New Page creation appears to be a system that is designed primarily to speed up the indexing of pages by Google, with a few checks on hasty indexing by Google, but the checks are all afterthoughts that do not work very well. Quick indexing of pages by Google works very well and very fast, and the various checks on it sometimes manage to work for a little while, but have cracks that crud falls through either by accident or on purpose. In this specific case, can the tagging be fixed so that just removing a speedy tag doesn't constitute an approval of the article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody understand what I am trying to explain? I get the feeling that I am explaining into a vacuum. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>
in the head. tagging for CSD, reviewing, unreviewing, retagging, and re-reviewing does not have any effect on the noindex status. Is it possible the resident Google bot ignores the noindex directive?-
Mr
X
15:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I had been hesitant to go into great detail as to what the exact problematic sequence of steps is, but I think that the spammers know the exact sequence as well as we do, so that there WP:BEANS doesn't apply and there is no benefit in avoiding saying what is going on. The unintended review occurs in the following situation:
If Editor D marks Article X as unreviewed before Google indexes it, the article isn't indexed. Likewise, if Editor C marks the article as unreviewed at the same time as they pull the deletion template, the article won't be indexed, but that is dependent on Editor C being a knowledgeable NPP reviewer who understands what is going on and wants to leave the indexing decision to yet another reviewer. However. otherwise, the tagging and untagging for speedy deletion has the effect of indexing the article. Editor C (or Editor A, since spammers don't care about the rule against an article-author untagging it) is, in effect, indexing the article. It doesn't take a real reviewer. That is the problematic sequence. Comments? In the cases we have seen, the article does eventually get deleted. But in the cases we haven't seen, the article gets indexed, and no one notices except the spammer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
We're below 20,000 for the first time in a while (at the time of writing, at least). Well done, everyone! Boleyn ( talk) 20:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran Special:NewPagesFeed, right-hand corner above the newest/oldest options.
Personally I do rejoice to see it going steadily, though very, very slowly, down. Yes, there's still a big issue and other solutions need looking at as most people agree, but I don't think ther's anything I can personally do about that. However, acknowledging the achievements of people working hard on this project is important too, and editors' hard work has helped. I find the doom and gloom on this page affects my morale and ability to keep working on it. I hoped pointing out asmall positive might be encouraging. Boleyn ( talk) 05:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There are advertisement on enwiki like "Wikipedia loves uniforms" submit photos of Indian law, and enforcement forces, and win prizes. There is one more ad currently going on about photos of heritage sites. Why cant there be a "notice" similar to these ads regarding NPP/R? Describing wikipedia needs reviewers? pinging @ Kudpung, Kaldari, MusikAnimal, and DannyH (WMF): —usernamekiran (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned this above, but the WMF has agreed to ACTRIAL in principle. You are invited to join the discussion on WT:NPPAFC. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The request for the notice/banner/advertisement can be found here:
link to meta
—usernamekiran
(talk)
19:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Usernamekiran, I think that's a positive step. I know I had no idea you could nominate yourself as a patroller, or even really that pages were patrolled systematically, until I was given the right. There are lots of people who would be very good reviewers who could be recruited. Boleyn ( talk) 19:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The statement was made a week ago, by an administrator and functionary, "Most new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. It is essential to retain them, but at least 80% of those who have their first article rejected quite understandably never return." What I would like to know, and I think some other editors would like to know, is a two-part question about the new editors. First, was that statement meant to refer to all new editors, or specifically to new editors whose first major contribution is a new article? If it is meant to refer to all new editors, then maybe it is outside the scope of this page, but, since it refers to rejection, it appears to apply to those who contribute an article (or occasionally group of articles). Second, is the statement that they come to contribute to the encyclopedia based on empirical knowledge, or is it a statement of belief? I am aware that it is an article of belief that new editors come to contribute to the encyclopedia. I do not have a whole lot of evidence with regard to those who throw an article over the fence, but perhaps I have a lack of faith, or have not seen the right metrics, or am looking in the wrong way or wrong place.
If it is empirically true that they come to contribute to the encyclopedia, and we are losing a large potential resource, then it is important to know that this is empirically true. First, in that case, we need a volunteer corps of meeters and greeters to supplement New Page Patrol. (Just dumping on New Page Patrol for not being sufficiently welcoming to editors who contribute crud will only burn them out, although dumping on the existing volunteers is very much the Wikipedia way.) Second, if they really do come to contribute to the encyclopedia, maybe WMF can actually figure out some way to engage them to further increase our meaningless metrics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have been reviewing new articles for a few days (thanks Kudpung for granting me the right) and made an observation.
A few months ago DrStrauss asked about a way to sort users by number of unreviewed pages. I created a script that generates such list, see User:Rentier/NPP. Listed below are aggregate numbers.
Unreviewed Articles | Editors | Articles | Backlog fraction |
---|---|---|---|
>50 | 10 | 650 | 3% |
>20 | 56 | 1996 | 10% |
>10 | 207 | 4108 | 21% |
>5 | 529 | 6450 | 32% |
>2 | 1434 | 9759 | 49% |
- | 10228 | 19851 | 100% |
Generated: 2017-06-29 15:20:58 UTC |
One fifth of the backlog can be removed by reviewing articles created by just 207 (2%) most prolific editors. Since articles created by the same user tend to be of similar quality, I think that reviewing is made much more efficient by grouping the reviews by user rather than just going through the list chronologically.
Rentier ( talk) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there some way to find how many articles/pages were reviewed in June? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran
(talk)
12:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I recently came across an article of a non-notable Bollywood song. The creator is A-PAT, and more than 90% of articles created by him are not notable. Most of the sources used are dependant of subject. I wanted a second opinion of an experienced user. Would somebody please look at it? X seems to be online. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I selected the name, clicked "search on google", then moved the article to Angira Dhar from Angira dhar, I skimmed through the sources (then closed the tabs); edited the article, and then marked it as reviewed. When I opened the google tab, I saw the first result was her wikipedia article. ie: The article was already indexed by google before it was reviewed. It was created on 13 June 2017, and reviewed just a few minutes ago from now. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, folks. I was under the impression that, unless the creator had the "autopatrolled" right, any articles newly moved from AfC into Main space would not be indexed until reviewed by someone here. But the above-named article, moved into Main space just a few hours ago, is already showing up in a Bing search. And I see no evidence that it has been patrolled. Am I misunderstanding something about the process? Any comments you have will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I made another list, this time grouping the unreviewed articles by keyword. It's a big (ca. 1MB so be careful if you are on a mobile) and ugly list, more of a proof of concept than anything else: User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed_articles_by_keyword. Enjoy Rentier ( talk) 15:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I created a web interface for browsing the backlog - you can filter by any keyword or username and sort the results: http://176.58.102.28/NPP/public/ If it proves useful, I will move it to the Tools Server later. MrX, do you think that an in-wiki list is still worth doing? I can add an "export to wikitable" option quite easily, but the web app is more convenient, at least for me. Rentier ( talk) 00:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rentier, this is so useful, thank you. It loads very slowly on my computer, so I've kept another tab opened and copied and pasted the titles into the searchbox that way. If this could be incorporated into Speacial:NewPagesFeed, and a newsletter go out about it, it might encourage some editors to come back. I've certainly been reviewing more, as I've been able to focus on disambiguation, which I know well, and searching for rivers, where I know the notability criteria well and so I'm able to patrol efficiently. Boleyn ( talk) 09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Rentier, I've been using the web tool and it's made my reviewing much easier and I've stayed more motivated and more efficient. Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to create this. Boleyn ( talk) 20:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This one is first from me though:
User:Usernamekiran/Strategies for NPR.
I also created a template to invite worthy editors to become new page reviewers. Worthy has been defined in the essay. —usernamekiran
(talk)
12:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've been looking at some of the top-backlogged creators, one of whom has made a large number of album entries for a prolific musician named Steve Roach (musician). The album entries I've checked so far all have zero or one secondary source (and if they have one, it's AllMusic). I reached out to the creator of the those in the backlog to see if they could be improved, but the editor concedes there are no further sources and so the entries don't meet NALBUMS; they made the entries because of a personal view of the worthiness of the artist. As a compromise I was going to suggest this editor make a "Discography of Steve Roach" page if they'd like to preserve track listings...but upon closer examination, I'm not sure the Steve Roach page itself (and thus a related discography) would survive AfD: right now it's very thinly sourced for GNG, and so far I haven't found a single album that has as many as two reviews for NARTIST, although I have not searched exhaustively. It wouldn't make any kind of sense to go through the work of creating a discography page and then redirecting dozens of entries to it if this is just not a topic we have the sources to cover in an encyclopedic manner, and we need to delete the whole. Might someone have a chance to look over the Steve Roach page with an eye toward this issue? Would be grateful for input on how to proceed. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 ( talk) 18:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been looking at these too, Innisfree987, and have been redirecting to artist. New editors often think albums are inherently worthy of inclusion, unfortunately! Thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn ( talk) 20:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Occasionally, in the queue of new articles, I will see two articles with almost the same title, and the same or almost the same content. The most recent example is Little Caesar (singer) and Little Ceaser (singer). In these cases, the articles are either the same, or one is slightly longer than the other. My assumption is that in these cases the editor doesn't know how redirects work, and wants to make their information accessible under an alternate title, and so has created a duplicate article. In these cases I have converted one of the two articles, typically the one with the variant spelling, into a redirect. (It is commonly, and correctly, said that redirects are cheap. I would add that storage is cheap, and the problem with duplicate articles is not that they use storage, but that the two articles will get out of sync.) Has anyone else seen this? Do other reviewers agree that if the reviewer notices that there are duplicate articles, one of them should be a redirect (probably because the creator doesn't know about redirects). Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, on New Page Patrol, I encounter an article that simply looks and feels like it was published in a journal or in a trade publication. It just doesn't look like it was written for Wikipedia, and looks like it is a polished piece of work, but was polished for a purpose other than Wikipedia. Normally I try to search for phrases in it using Google. Sometimes this works, and that is G12, but usually not. Earwig's copyvio detector is another source. If I don't find the original, my usual action is to tag it with {{copy-paste}}. Is there another reasonable action? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
In one case today, I tagged a page with copy-paste, and it was removed by the author with a comment that it was copied by the copyright author into a new page with a different title. Now that, to me, looks like an acknowledgment precisely that it is copyvio, because Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted material even from the copyright author unless there is a proper release of copyleft. Is that correct? What do I do now, other than re-apply the tag? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: We are doing a push on July 15. If you are experienced in patrolling, we want you. Thanks! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 17:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there an IRC room or Slack channel or anything that will be going on Saturday? Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a mass message should be sent to all flag holders thanking them, and boasting about stats
Tony?
We can organise another similar event in mid or end of August. This thank you note, and boasting will serve as motivation for everybody. —usernamekiran
(talk)
04:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, for some reason I thought I had read it as it was already updating. I think it would be helpful. I have a few other questions, but I'll ask it on the talk page to avoid cluttering this space. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)