![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I've started up a discord channel for us to use between us patrollers. You can get there by simply clicking on this permanent link. If you create an account ('claim account') with the same nickname as your username, it will be easy to keep track of all of us. You can download the discord app, or simply run it as a tab in your browser, both work fine.
This is not any kind of replacement for this message board; anything that is relevant to all patrollers should still be brought up here first and foremost. I just thought it would be nice to be able to chat with each other, and perhaps aid in collaboration between reviewers to be able to have a real time chat or voice chat venue. Discord seems the best for this purpose, as the room will stay open indefinitely for our use. Feel free to join or not. I'll be on in the next hour or so, and then again in about 10-12 hours from now. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 15:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This one plain baffles me. Do we field articles about a city's bid for an expo? Is this bid per se an event that's notable? If yes, then this seems well sourced. But to me it feels like a bit of a non-event that shouldn't/wouldn't get an article. Anyone have some precedents in the bonded storehouse of their knowledge? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 3350 articles, and we have managed to review everything older than the 90 day index point. We need to work on reducing the number of articles in the backlog, as it is still unacceptably high, however, we don't need to focus on the back any more. Please feel free to review the front, back or certain types of articles from the middle using the new page patrol browser, whatever is most convenient and efficient for you. The key here is to continue quality reviewing, and to reduce the number of articles in the backlog.
ACTRIAL is ending in a couple days, which means that we will have at least a month and a half or so during which data will be collected and reported and the results from ACTRIAL will be discussed. We can expect 300 or so additional articles to be submitted each day during this period (this was the excess before ACTRIAL started), so we will all need to do some additional reviewing just to keep up. While we have no guarantee that ACTRIAL will be made permanent, so far the community has regarded it as a resounding success and preliminary data generally indicates positive results. I will post more updates with information once a formal discussion begins.
Cheers and thank you all for your continued support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
...because the ideal system would be to check every page twice: a quick once-over at the moment of creation to spot anything speediable, but then wait maybe 7 days before releasing it to the world, to see if (a) the creator develops it further, (b) some big controversy blows up quickly 84.13.190.60 ( talk) 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The six month ACTRIAL period ends on Wednesday March 14th, so Community Tech will be switching off the ACTRIAL code, around 10:00am Pacific time, aka 17:00 UTC.
On Tuesday (tomorrow), we'll publish the final research report written by Morten Warncke-Wang (aka User:Nettrom), based on the data collection and analysis of the first two months of the trial. There won't be any big surprises for anyone who's been following along on the Research page on Meta; it's a summary of those findings, with suggestions for further discussion and study. We're planning to post it as a subpage of the Wikipedia:ACTRIAL page, and post links in various places so people will come and check it out. The intention is for those findings to help inform the post-ACTRIAL discussions and decisions.
So that's coming soon. Is there anything that you think we should know, or talk about? -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm happy to tell you that the ACTRIAL Post-trial Research Report has been published on Wikipedia as a subpage of WP:ACTRIAL. This is the result of a collaboration between the New Page Patrol reviewers and the WMF Community Tech team, and we're excited to publish the findings as a contribution to the ongoing discussions about the trial. We're looking forward to hearing what you all think about the findings, and being part of the conversations from here. Thanks -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation about whether or not autoconfirmed status should be required to create an article in the main space. This is a follow up to the recently ended autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I have started a number of nominations for T-shirt giveaways to our top reviewers, please stop by the nomination page to add your support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Just sharing some numbers that I crunched for those that are interested. I've noticed the backlog raising over the past 5 days or so, since ACTRIAL ended, and I can't say I am surprised. The backlog was steady before but has begun raising as a result of the 200 or so pages created each day by new users. The overall rate of page creation has increased by a commensurate amount. I have compared the reviewing rate of the 5 days before the 14 March (2836 reviews), and the 5 days since the 14th of March (2806 reviews) just to check that our reviewing rate hasn't dropped for some reason, and as you can see they are virtually identical. If we want to keep up with the influx of new articles, we are going to need about 90 more reviews per day over what we are currently doing. Note that the backlog was dropping before ACTRIAL ended, so it would currently be dropping by 100 or so articles per day if it wasn't for these new articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is just an update to all new page reviewers that WP:NCORP has been substantially rewritten to strengthen the sourcing requirements for corporations and organizations (with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams). It is probably worth a read for all new page reviewers. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I just applied for and got page mover rights to make the entire draft moving business a bit easier, and I'd like to ask some advice here such as not to screw up immediately. I just moved the promising Post - 1500 Southeast Asia Archaeology to Draft:Post - 1500 Southeast Asia Archaeology for some further improvement. To enable the user to move it back out themselves when cleaned up, I did so without leaving a redirect (which would ordinarily block the move). Question - is that kosher? I don't quite know what the stance is on the necessity and/or desirability of mainspace redirects when draftifying. Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NPPR's, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Whitelisting_sites_for_newbies for a discussion regarding url's that can be CAPTCHA exempt. — xaosflux Talk 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Trying to enjoy my now 12-month retirement from pushing on the NPP rope, I see that I'm still one the top 20 or 30 who incidentally are still doing something like 95% of the work out of a supposed 500 or more patrollers. I'm only doing this to see first hand what the feed now looks like since ACTRIAL was switched off. I am therefore staggered to see the number of non-English articles (usually in one of the languages that use Arabic script) simply being shoved off to WP:PNT. This is plain sloppy and lazy patrolling. Most of these 'articles' fall under one or another of our CSD criteria and can be immediately dealt with. All it takes is a few seconds to dump the the article lede into Google Translate to find out what it's about and then tag it with an appropriate CSD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it was implemented to save time, but does anyone else find it problematic that articles are automatically marked as reviewed when edited by a patroller? For example, if someone CSD tags an article, believing it will be deleted, it's a waste of time to check the rest of the article just in case the CSD is declined. The problem arises if the CSD is declined, the article is still garbage, and it's been automatically marked as patrolled. Why does tagging an article automatically mark it as patrolled? Natureium ( talk) 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I find that useful. It happens only with auotamted tools. So when I CDS something (article/draft/userpage), it gets reviewed, gets added to my csd log, and also in my watchlist. In case somebody removes speedy tag, i get notified. In case i might not be around for few upcoming days, or i get a doubt based on article/creator history, i unreview it just after tagging it. It also happens if you tag them with anything. I have added {notability|biography} tag to a few articles manually, just cuz i didnt want to mark them as reviewed. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's an another example of an article about a financial product/institution/app based on blockchain technology. Now that virtually all major outlets have banned adds for such stuff, we seem to be dealing with a lot of submissions. Is there some other way to deal with them? Blacklist the sources? Do have we a speedy criterion for scams? G3 doesn't seem to apply. These are not pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes; they're rather sophisticated, actually. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this is somewhere and I missed it (I spent some time looking for it) but I stumbled upon Deir ez-Zor airstrike. What is the protocol for reviewing disambiguation pages? Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why are the CSDs for no indication of importance so specific? How much of a stretch is allowed? For example, Nathdwara Railway Station. The only text in the article is "It is located 20 km from Nathdwara on Nathdwara-Mavli road NH 162 Ext." Is a train station a company or organization? It belongs to a company, no? Why is unremarkable place not one of the criteria? ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
When a user creates an article using the Article Wizard, does it automatically get tagged for review and loaded into the NPP queue before it's indexed for mainspace? I happened across
Trump and JCPOA which was created using the wizard - it's tagged but I don't see it in our queue - there is a tag suggesting it be moved to user space, and copyedited. Considering the importance and sensitivity of the topic, I would think it would be a priority to make sure the article has been properly reviewed before it ever saw the light of day. It appears English is not that particular user's 1st language, and it appears their interest focuses on the interactions of the US & Iran. Based on what I've seen on the TP, the editor is a proficient article creator, has done good work, and participates in DYK but not without the need for "intervention" and/or outside copyediting. I was
Just curious... to know if, in this particular case, the Article Wizard was the best option, and if not, would it be appropriate to recommend a different option to that editor? Also, would it be appropriate for a NPR to go ahead and move that article to Draft?
Atsme
📞
📧
16:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 4622 articles, up from 3350 at my last update on 14th March. Given that ACTRIAL has been turned off during that period, I think we can say that we are doing well. The backlog is still looking in good shape, with us holding off the index point by about 1 month. Not much more to say about it, as the graph above is very similarr to the one I made a month ago, which is quite good given the circumstances. Good work everyone and keep it up. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Since that page is less often used, I'll suggest here. Would people be in favor of merging the page for talking about page curation with the page for talking about the tool for page curation? Neither are highly trafficked, and there is considerable overlap in topic. Natureium ( talk) 00:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed a popup with the text "failed to apply tags the page" when tagging an article using the page curation tool? It happened to me when I tried to tag Dilip De for deletion with a G4 tag today, and yesterday when I tried the same on Dilip K De. Vexations ( talk) 15:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) And again, just now on Ellen Roth Deutsch, where it created two entries for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Roth Deutsch, which I didn't notice until I went to Twinkle and inadvertently created at second AfD. Vexations ( talk) 16:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I've asked for help with this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Issues_with_marking_pages_for_deletion. Natureium ( talk) 16:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
"Users applying for the New Page Patroller flag at WP:PERM are expected to have been registered for at least 90 days and to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles." Change that to 500 edits within the past 90 days or something to that effect. Jadeslair ( talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The above items are guidelines and numerical compliance alone does not constitute a right to the user group. An administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent or may request experience above and beyond the above criteria.Those criteria are basically quick decline criteria. Someone who has no recent experience on Wikipedia is not likely to be granted any user right (i.e. to use an extreme example someone with thousands of edits from 2003-2004 is unlikely to be given rollback if they request it with no recent experience). TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It is very possible that regular reviewers from the AfC team will apply for New Page Reviewer, and with their expertise, it is highly desirable, hence no recent comments on that front are new, original ideas. AfC reform and the idea of merging it with NPP have been on the table for years and I don't believe that it originally came from me.
Excuse me but I missing something here. Why isn't the recent activity requirement in the documentation? I don't have a problem with the requirement or that I was denied. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a certain level of participation from people with the perm. What isn't reasonable is to go around the project asking people to join who don't qualify and have no way of knowing that they don't qualify because the qualifications are posted anywhere. How do we fix this? -- AdamF in MO ( talk) 15:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is surely an autobiography. This actress is desperately trying to get herself on Wiki. One editor tagged it for CSD but it got declined as there seems to be no CSD criteria for this. There is also Draft:Elnaaz Norouzi which is written by someone else. My judgement says we should keep the draft for AfC and delete this COI article she created herself. What should be done in this case? Dial911 ( talk) 06:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We're down to 3955 3899! Let's hope we can keep it heading in the right direction.
Boleyn (
talk)
10:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Since the change in article creation requirements I'm seeing a lot of articles coming through which are "orphan" and "no citations", many of which are being created from or are overwriting previous redirects. Often these pages are written by enthusiastic admirers of the subject and do not have an encyclopedic tone. I'm draftifying a lot of these but I'm starting to feel tentative about doing so. I'm therefore creating a list of pages I draftify on my user page so that anyone who has a different perspective on how to handle these pages can offer input or reverse these actions if necessary. Edaham ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone has overwritten a redirect at Budhia with a BLP. the two links cited don’t work (even with a VPN - I’m in China) I PRODded it, but besides that it looks like its been created on top of a redirect, the name of which has nothing to do with the actual subject of the new article. Edaham ( talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
A user Jusipher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently created some new articles on songs by Cupcakke. I'm not convinced of the notability of these articles per WP:NSONG. But regardless of that, many of these articles contain excessive quotes, as identified by earwigs copyvio detector. So these excessive quotes need to be removed really and where the songs are not notable in themselves, redirects created to the artist/album. Can anyone help with this? Polyamorph ( talk) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The article List of Natsume's Book of Friends characters is just copied and pasted from sources such as this. I suspect the sources have compatible licenses but was unable to confirm this. What is it best to do? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Avogadro:_Quest_for_the_Mole
I cannot find anything at all about this page on an obscure game. I can't believe that not one source about the developers or game etc exists, but a search of various combinations of key words reveals nothing. As its a new page I initially wanted to give it time to survive in draft space, but now after searching for three minutes I want to speedy it. Please advise. Many thanks
Edaham (
talk)
23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that will be of interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged 4 articles for CSD recently on the same theme:
![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I've started up a discord channel for us to use between us patrollers. You can get there by simply clicking on this permanent link. If you create an account ('claim account') with the same nickname as your username, it will be easy to keep track of all of us. You can download the discord app, or simply run it as a tab in your browser, both work fine.
This is not any kind of replacement for this message board; anything that is relevant to all patrollers should still be brought up here first and foremost. I just thought it would be nice to be able to chat with each other, and perhaps aid in collaboration between reviewers to be able to have a real time chat or voice chat venue. Discord seems the best for this purpose, as the room will stay open indefinitely for our use. Feel free to join or not. I'll be on in the next hour or so, and then again in about 10-12 hours from now. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 15:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This one plain baffles me. Do we field articles about a city's bid for an expo? Is this bid per se an event that's notable? If yes, then this seems well sourced. But to me it feels like a bit of a non-event that shouldn't/wouldn't get an article. Anyone have some precedents in the bonded storehouse of their knowledge? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 3350 articles, and we have managed to review everything older than the 90 day index point. We need to work on reducing the number of articles in the backlog, as it is still unacceptably high, however, we don't need to focus on the back any more. Please feel free to review the front, back or certain types of articles from the middle using the new page patrol browser, whatever is most convenient and efficient for you. The key here is to continue quality reviewing, and to reduce the number of articles in the backlog.
ACTRIAL is ending in a couple days, which means that we will have at least a month and a half or so during which data will be collected and reported and the results from ACTRIAL will be discussed. We can expect 300 or so additional articles to be submitted each day during this period (this was the excess before ACTRIAL started), so we will all need to do some additional reviewing just to keep up. While we have no guarantee that ACTRIAL will be made permanent, so far the community has regarded it as a resounding success and preliminary data generally indicates positive results. I will post more updates with information once a formal discussion begins.
Cheers and thank you all for your continued support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
...because the ideal system would be to check every page twice: a quick once-over at the moment of creation to spot anything speediable, but then wait maybe 7 days before releasing it to the world, to see if (a) the creator develops it further, (b) some big controversy blows up quickly 84.13.190.60 ( talk) 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The six month ACTRIAL period ends on Wednesday March 14th, so Community Tech will be switching off the ACTRIAL code, around 10:00am Pacific time, aka 17:00 UTC.
On Tuesday (tomorrow), we'll publish the final research report written by Morten Warncke-Wang (aka User:Nettrom), based on the data collection and analysis of the first two months of the trial. There won't be any big surprises for anyone who's been following along on the Research page on Meta; it's a summary of those findings, with suggestions for further discussion and study. We're planning to post it as a subpage of the Wikipedia:ACTRIAL page, and post links in various places so people will come and check it out. The intention is for those findings to help inform the post-ACTRIAL discussions and decisions.
So that's coming soon. Is there anything that you think we should know, or talk about? -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm happy to tell you that the ACTRIAL Post-trial Research Report has been published on Wikipedia as a subpage of WP:ACTRIAL. This is the result of a collaboration between the New Page Patrol reviewers and the WMF Community Tech team, and we're excited to publish the findings as a contribution to the ongoing discussions about the trial. We're looking forward to hearing what you all think about the findings, and being part of the conversations from here. Thanks -- DannyH (WMF) ( talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation about whether or not autoconfirmed status should be required to create an article in the main space. This is a follow up to the recently ended autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I have started a number of nominations for T-shirt giveaways to our top reviewers, please stop by the nomination page to add your support. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Just sharing some numbers that I crunched for those that are interested. I've noticed the backlog raising over the past 5 days or so, since ACTRIAL ended, and I can't say I am surprised. The backlog was steady before but has begun raising as a result of the 200 or so pages created each day by new users. The overall rate of page creation has increased by a commensurate amount. I have compared the reviewing rate of the 5 days before the 14 March (2836 reviews), and the 5 days since the 14th of March (2806 reviews) just to check that our reviewing rate hasn't dropped for some reason, and as you can see they are virtually identical. If we want to keep up with the influx of new articles, we are going to need about 90 more reviews per day over what we are currently doing. Note that the backlog was dropping before ACTRIAL ended, so it would currently be dropping by 100 or so articles per day if it wasn't for these new articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 09:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is just an update to all new page reviewers that WP:NCORP has been substantially rewritten to strengthen the sourcing requirements for corporations and organizations (with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams). It is probably worth a read for all new page reviewers. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I just applied for and got page mover rights to make the entire draft moving business a bit easier, and I'd like to ask some advice here such as not to screw up immediately. I just moved the promising Post - 1500 Southeast Asia Archaeology to Draft:Post - 1500 Southeast Asia Archaeology for some further improvement. To enable the user to move it back out themselves when cleaned up, I did so without leaving a redirect (which would ordinarily block the move). Question - is that kosher? I don't quite know what the stance is on the necessity and/or desirability of mainspace redirects when draftifying. Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi NPPR's, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Whitelisting_sites_for_newbies for a discussion regarding url's that can be CAPTCHA exempt. — xaosflux Talk 14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Trying to enjoy my now 12-month retirement from pushing on the NPP rope, I see that I'm still one the top 20 or 30 who incidentally are still doing something like 95% of the work out of a supposed 500 or more patrollers. I'm only doing this to see first hand what the feed now looks like since ACTRIAL was switched off. I am therefore staggered to see the number of non-English articles (usually in one of the languages that use Arabic script) simply being shoved off to WP:PNT. This is plain sloppy and lazy patrolling. Most of these 'articles' fall under one or another of our CSD criteria and can be immediately dealt with. All it takes is a few seconds to dump the the article lede into Google Translate to find out what it's about and then tag it with an appropriate CSD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it was implemented to save time, but does anyone else find it problematic that articles are automatically marked as reviewed when edited by a patroller? For example, if someone CSD tags an article, believing it will be deleted, it's a waste of time to check the rest of the article just in case the CSD is declined. The problem arises if the CSD is declined, the article is still garbage, and it's been automatically marked as patrolled. Why does tagging an article automatically mark it as patrolled? Natureium ( talk) 18:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I find that useful. It happens only with auotamted tools. So when I CDS something (article/draft/userpage), it gets reviewed, gets added to my csd log, and also in my watchlist. In case somebody removes speedy tag, i get notified. In case i might not be around for few upcoming days, or i get a doubt based on article/creator history, i unreview it just after tagging it. It also happens if you tag them with anything. I have added {notability|biography} tag to a few articles manually, just cuz i didnt want to mark them as reviewed. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's an another example of an article about a financial product/institution/app based on blockchain technology. Now that virtually all major outlets have banned adds for such stuff, we seem to be dealing with a lot of submissions. Is there some other way to deal with them? Blacklist the sources? Do have we a speedy criterion for scams? G3 doesn't seem to apply. These are not pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes; they're rather sophisticated, actually. Mduvekot ( talk) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies if this is somewhere and I missed it (I spent some time looking for it) but I stumbled upon Deir ez-Zor airstrike. What is the protocol for reviewing disambiguation pages? Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why are the CSDs for no indication of importance so specific? How much of a stretch is allowed? For example, Nathdwara Railway Station. The only text in the article is "It is located 20 km from Nathdwara on Nathdwara-Mavli road NH 162 Ext." Is a train station a company or organization? It belongs to a company, no? Why is unremarkable place not one of the criteria? ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
When a user creates an article using the Article Wizard, does it automatically get tagged for review and loaded into the NPP queue before it's indexed for mainspace? I happened across
Trump and JCPOA which was created using the wizard - it's tagged but I don't see it in our queue - there is a tag suggesting it be moved to user space, and copyedited. Considering the importance and sensitivity of the topic, I would think it would be a priority to make sure the article has been properly reviewed before it ever saw the light of day. It appears English is not that particular user's 1st language, and it appears their interest focuses on the interactions of the US & Iran. Based on what I've seen on the TP, the editor is a proficient article creator, has done good work, and participates in DYK but not without the need for "intervention" and/or outside copyediting. I was
Just curious... to know if, in this particular case, the Article Wizard was the best option, and if not, would it be appropriate to recommend a different option to that editor? Also, would it be appropriate for a NPR to go ahead and move that article to Draft?
Atsme
📞
📧
16:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 4622 articles, up from 3350 at my last update on 14th March. Given that ACTRIAL has been turned off during that period, I think we can say that we are doing well. The backlog is still looking in good shape, with us holding off the index point by about 1 month. Not much more to say about it, as the graph above is very similarr to the one I made a month ago, which is quite good given the circumstances. Good work everyone and keep it up. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Since that page is less often used, I'll suggest here. Would people be in favor of merging the page for talking about page curation with the page for talking about the tool for page curation? Neither are highly trafficked, and there is considerable overlap in topic. Natureium ( talk) 00:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed a popup with the text "failed to apply tags the page" when tagging an article using the page curation tool? It happened to me when I tried to tag Dilip De for deletion with a G4 tag today, and yesterday when I tried the same on Dilip K De. Vexations ( talk) 15:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) And again, just now on Ellen Roth Deutsch, where it created two entries for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Roth Deutsch, which I didn't notice until I went to Twinkle and inadvertently created at second AfD. Vexations ( talk) 16:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I've asked for help with this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Issues_with_marking_pages_for_deletion. Natureium ( talk) 16:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
"Users applying for the New Page Patroller flag at WP:PERM are expected to have been registered for at least 90 days and to have made at least 500 uncontested edits to mainspace articles." Change that to 500 edits within the past 90 days or something to that effect. Jadeslair ( talk) 17:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The above items are guidelines and numerical compliance alone does not constitute a right to the user group. An administrator may also grant page reviewer rights to users they otherwise deem competent or may request experience above and beyond the above criteria.Those criteria are basically quick decline criteria. Someone who has no recent experience on Wikipedia is not likely to be granted any user right (i.e. to use an extreme example someone with thousands of edits from 2003-2004 is unlikely to be given rollback if they request it with no recent experience). TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It is very possible that regular reviewers from the AfC team will apply for New Page Reviewer, and with their expertise, it is highly desirable, hence no recent comments on that front are new, original ideas. AfC reform and the idea of merging it with NPP have been on the table for years and I don't believe that it originally came from me.
Excuse me but I missing something here. Why isn't the recent activity requirement in the documentation? I don't have a problem with the requirement or that I was denied. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a certain level of participation from people with the perm. What isn't reasonable is to go around the project asking people to join who don't qualify and have no way of knowing that they don't qualify because the qualifications are posted anywhere. How do we fix this? -- AdamF in MO ( talk) 15:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is surely an autobiography. This actress is desperately trying to get herself on Wiki. One editor tagged it for CSD but it got declined as there seems to be no CSD criteria for this. There is also Draft:Elnaaz Norouzi which is written by someone else. My judgement says we should keep the draft for AfC and delete this COI article she created herself. What should be done in this case? Dial911 ( talk) 06:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We're down to 3955 3899! Let's hope we can keep it heading in the right direction.
Boleyn (
talk)
10:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Since the change in article creation requirements I'm seeing a lot of articles coming through which are "orphan" and "no citations", many of which are being created from or are overwriting previous redirects. Often these pages are written by enthusiastic admirers of the subject and do not have an encyclopedic tone. I'm draftifying a lot of these but I'm starting to feel tentative about doing so. I'm therefore creating a list of pages I draftify on my user page so that anyone who has a different perspective on how to handle these pages can offer input or reverse these actions if necessary. Edaham ( talk) 07:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Someone has overwritten a redirect at Budhia with a BLP. the two links cited don’t work (even with a VPN - I’m in China) I PRODded it, but besides that it looks like its been created on top of a redirect, the name of which has nothing to do with the actual subject of the new article. Edaham ( talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
A user Jusipher ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently created some new articles on songs by Cupcakke. I'm not convinced of the notability of these articles per WP:NSONG. But regardless of that, many of these articles contain excessive quotes, as identified by earwigs copyvio detector. So these excessive quotes need to be removed really and where the songs are not notable in themselves, redirects created to the artist/album. Can anyone help with this? Polyamorph ( talk) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The article List of Natsume's Book of Friends characters is just copied and pasted from sources such as this. I suspect the sources have compatible licenses but was unable to confirm this. What is it best to do? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Avogadro:_Quest_for_the_Mole
I cannot find anything at all about this page on an obscure game. I can't believe that not one source about the developers or game etc exists, but a search of various combinations of key words reveals nothing. As its a new page I initially wanted to give it time to survive in draft space, but now after searching for three minutes I want to speedy it. Please advise. Many thanks
Edaham (
talk)
23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that will be of interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I've tagged 4 articles for CSD recently on the same theme: