![]() | 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I have come across a few list articles that only contain a couple of redlinked entries no bluelinked ones and no sources. I originally prodded them as for me they we're in contradiction with the WP:CSC for stand alone lists. At the top of the SETINDEX page it states that the guidelines for the articles are the stand alone list guidelines. They were unprodded and I entered into a lengthy discussion where I was told that it was perfectly acceptable for a particular project to have these kind of articles. I wanted to know if it is common practice to allow all Set index articles to follow this format or not. I do not want to get into another heated discussion with project members for nothing and get told that I should not have prodded them without asking the project if they were ok with it first. Could anyone advise me ? Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Per the RfC, the page creation limitation enacted during ACTRIAL is now permanently implemented. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday evening when checking my watchlist, I noticed that the article Nicolas Moussiopoulos had been edited quite a bit. Checking the diffs, this is how the Nicolas article looked after CASSIOPEIA added tags to it: [1]. I have had issues with them in the past, see Special:Permalink/838299176#Alessandro Nolli Brianzi and Twins of Evil: The Second Coming Tour have moved to draft page. But, that's not what I'm here for. On Nicolas Moussiopoulos, the {{cn}} spam was soon after removed, and CASSIOPEIA readded it. I found this quite concerning, and decided to go through their past edits and see if this has happened elsewhere. Evidently, it has.
I have only gone back about 6 days in checking pages, so there's probably more tha I didn't see yet. I'd also like to note that many of their additions of tags occur in seperate edits just a few seconds apart, which I found odd. Before commenting here, please see the discussion on their talk page. I am not here to explicitly recommend anything be done, as this is not my area of knowledge; I'd just like to bring this to the attention of involved sysops and coordinators. Pinging primefac who accepted them to the AfC WikiProject. Thank you, and happy editing. Vermont ( talk) 10:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm interested to know if anyone has any opinion on Global Music Awards. The article and the award do not smell right to me, and I'm wondering if it is promotional. The judging process appears to be dubious and self-perpetuating (the judges are largely past winners [2]), what its entry criteria are (it appears that you can enter it yourself, but may have to pay [3]), and the winners are apparently largely unknown apart from some recognizable names. Seems like a self-promotional award site to me. Hzh ( talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
When special:newpages says "xyz pages reviewed this week", does it mean last 7 days or calendar week? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The Page Curation tool reports 'unable to find target location' i.e. Redirects for Discussion, when sending redirects to RfD. Could somebody please stat a bug report at Bugzilla. Maybe Kaldari could address this issue directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Because so many of the articles we review are moved to draftspace leaving a redirect automatically tagged for CSD, I propose NPP automatically grant the right "suppressredirect". Thoughts? Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
hello, from 6 hours ago the curatiom toolbar just don't pop up when I am aboutto take reviewing of a page. Tried to check SQL the script is still there. any remedies ? Quek157 ( talk) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying without success to nominate this article for PROD via BLP notice board and on the article's head. It is a BLP with the only source being a link to the baidu search engine - i.e. it has no sources. I'm feeling like I'm getting a bit militant because I have started reverting people who remove the PROD notice without fixing the issue. Please advise. Cheers. Edaham ( talk) 04:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Chips, cheese and gravy had been a redirect to Poutine. A user has (twice) removed this redirect. At the moment all that exists is an infobox (see this [4]). It seems like this user is still developing the page but for future reference would I review this as a blank page or treat it like it has content? Looking for some guidance about this article but also concept more generally in case I were to see it again. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
How might you patrol a geographic location like Kalyvia_Sochas that has no sources? -- JustBerry ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Could still use some refs, so the tag is appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I would mark as unref and send the creator a message saying 'Please add your references. External links just means suggestions for further reading. We really need to know what your sources were so we know the information is accurate. Could you please add them clearly, preferably WP:INLINECITED?' On the whole, people do respond by adding them. Boleyn ( talk) 08:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
How does it come about that editor Azerbanjo, who on May 9th created the new article Bionix Radiation Therapy, has only two actions in their contribution history whereas looking at the editor's talk page it is apparent they have made other contributions? I see I asked them to disclose whether they had a conflict of interest a month ago and they have not done so. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that despite the fact that ACTRIAL has now become permanent the backlog is still growing and currently approaching 5K articles.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal for the community to impose General Sanctions on cyrptocurrencies and blockchain has been posted and might be of interest to New Page Reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 07:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Editathons: upcoming sessions 1 through 30 June: "Wiki Loves Pride", "Women singers/Women+Song", "Geo-focus: Russia/Soviet Union", and "Women and GLAM". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 4800 articles and dates back to very early March. We have been generally keeping the numbers steady, but the start of ACREQ has not resulted in an appreciable reduction of the backlog as hoped (due to a drop in reviewing activity following ACREQ). I can't fault anyone for taking a well deserved break, as I myself have also been on an extended wikibreak, but special thanks go to those that have continued chipping away at the coal face. Thank you!
We have only about two weeks buffer from the Index Point at present and the shape of the backlog is also a little less healthy than it was in my last update: there is a pretty big bulge around the middle of March that is headed our way, so we need to be prepared to make sure that we can deal with it and ensure that it doesn't push past the index point. Review from the back if you can, our long term target is still to keep the backlog below 30 days, so we still have a long way to go. Cheers all and keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have always tried to emphasise on increasing the number of reviewers. Thats why i had created the invitation message template. But unfortunately, lately my overall activity has decreased a lot. If in the next newsletter we can say something like "reviewing 5 pages a day" would cripple the backlog, that'd be great. I mean, if we consider that only 100 reviewers would review 7 pages a day (a combined average), that would be 700 pages per day. Then within 12-13 days, we will have the backlog on the same levels of pending changes, that is, "as they come-in". That would still be like 400 per day though. @ Kudpung: I am not sure what you are referring to with "If the AfD people can do it, then I very sure we can." Would you elaborate please? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Kudpung: This power law curve of New Page Patrollers that I prepared at the end of 2017 will always be a thing. If you graph the editors that I invited that joined, the same shape curve is seen. i.e. if you invite 100 people, a half dozen of them will do half of the work, and the other half will be done mostly by about 30 people. This isn't going to change, but if we want to get more of those half dozens, we need to get more groups of 100 to join. The return rate of invites is somewhere between 10-15%, so that means inviting another 1000. The place to continue is where I found the last cohort: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#1001–2000. I finished the top 1000 last time. Template:NPR invite is also still there waiting to be used. I'll go back and invite more users at some point, but it is rather frustrating to get a huge backlash onto me every time one of my invitees fail. I got a lot of flak from you for invitees that failed due to stuff that I couldn't have known about (the one you brought up specifically who I won't name here), or for user activity level, which wasn't actually a requirement of the user right at the time (this has been subsequently clarified). Carefully vetting every user is something that needs to be done before they are granted the user right, but doing so before inviting quickly becomes prohibitively time consuming, which is why I stopped inviting people in the first place. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand you power law argument only too well and I can't dispute it, it's exactly the problem we're faced with. We also have over 1,000 admins but only about 30 of us are doing the bulk of the work but one thing is for sure, if they don't use their tools, here comes a time when they wake up without them - and that's what happens at AfC. but if you want 5,000 patrollers to get enough to do the work of 500, bear in mind quis custodiet ipsos custodes? at the moment it's only me and DGG and we've both got other things we would prefer to be doing. There's a scary undertermined number of reviewers out there who are offering to write articles for money, do you want to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse? It's all happened before.
It's not time consuming if you organise your regex or quarry or whatever you folks do for datamining, and enter enough criteria like we did when we grandfathered the first batch of reviewers. You'll certainly not get a lot of thanks from admins if you swamp PERM with a lot of extra work - particularly when you leave them with the unsavoury job of researching and declining 15-25% of them, we don't just read the user names and click a button. I don't even work there as much as I used to but when I take a look I see applicants yelling because their requests haven't been processed within 24 hours or getting really nasty when we decline. Anyone in that much of a hurry is only wanting to fill the top shelf of their wardrobe. If you want me to give you a set of criteria for you to compile a search string, let me know. It might keep your computer running all night, but those are things Scott and I had to do in the past for NPP for less urgent matters than we are discussing today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
If you are determined to organise a backlog drive, let me know the dates in the next 24 hours before I publish the The Signpost - I have an article about NPP in it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. publication probably withn the next 48 hours. I'll also take a look at the NPR newsletter draft and discuss it with
Tony, maybe one should be sent out soon.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 01:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, I have a busy day in the office today. I'll do the search criteria list this evening. Signpost notice for the backlog drive is done including an appeal for more reviewers. Publishing in about 10 hours. Newsletter is ready but I'll send it nearer the end of the month in case there are new developments - especially to the WMF work on the feed, by which time I might also have news about the upcoming coord election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have just nominated Barima Sidney for speedy deletion for G11 and G12 using page curation. A notice has appeared on the creator's page and another on the article's talk page, but no speedy deletion template has appeared on the article page. What should I do next? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH (WMF) and Kaldari at WMF. Now that ACTRIAL has become permanent, we're expecting a lot of traffic to shift from the NPR process to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.
To help equip AfC reviewers to handle that traffic, the Community Tech team are going to be dedicating some bandwidth during May and June to improving that process. We began a good discussion about which improvements would be most impactful toward helping AfC get high quality drafts into the main namespace quickly, and we've settled on a plan. I'm posting here because we think that the planned work will also benefit the NPR process, and I want to make sure anyone interested will be able to weigh in.
Tagging Kudpung, Insertcleverphrasehere, Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Vexations, and Rentier, who all participated in that discussion (thank you!), in case they want to chime in here.
Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the idea is that AfC does not currently have an efficient way to prioritize drafts for review, and the New Pages Feed is an existing interface that could help. The plan is:
Though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC and NPR communities. I'm going to be posting regular updates on that project page, including mockups of different ways that the changes could be implemented so that we can get thoughts and reactions from reviewers. It's definitely going to be critical to get feedback from this group on how much impact (hopefully positive) the changes will have on the usage of the New Pages Feed.
-- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 17:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes very helpful. There are actually three kinds of Drafts that should be sortable 1. Submitted to AfC awaiting review. 2. Declined by AfC (might be submitted again) 3. Not submitted to AfC (may not even be tagged). Group 3 is worth looking at for attack, Spam and other problematic pages as well as useful pages that could be promoted since some people seem to think Drafts magically move to mainspace on their own. All types of Drafts could benefit from patrolling. Legacypac ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a software engineer but it seems easier to include all of Draftspace with a filter for AfC Submitted tags than to exclude a block of untagged pages. All Drafts are temporary.
1. Draft created 2. Draft MAY be submitted AfC 2.a Draft may be accepted and becomes a redirect to mainspace 2 b Draft is declined and may be resubmitted or not 3. A patroller notices the Draft and seeks deletion (afc or not) OR 4. The creator or someone else moves it to mainspace and title becomes a redirect or it is simply redirected without a move (topic exists) 5. Draft reaches 6 months unedited and gets considered for WP:G13
(Sorry hard to draw a flowchart with words)
The entire universe of Drafts (other than redirects) is therefore finite and somewhat stable in total numbers. It is (currently poorly) managed as a backlog of unreviewed pages. Adding Drafts to Page Curation Tool will greatly assist in helping to manage all unreviewed pages. Patrolers may choose to improve pages they encounter even if they are not ready to move them to mainspace yet. Arguably marking "Reviewed" would usually main moving it to mainspace. Otherwise sooner or later the page will need to be tagged for deletion or redirected and does not need to be "reviewed". Legacypac ( talk) 16:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF), as a NPP, the biggest issue, in my opinin, were always the way the process rolls. Rentier made a great job creating the NPP browse, I often use it to select topics I am familiar with. I've also seen a tendency of tagging without any attempt to improve the article although many of them, doing a quick Google search, have reliable references. Reviewer should be encouraged to try to improve an article prior to filling them with tags and moving to the next one. I feel this would be a constructive behaviour and beneficial for the entire Wikipedia community. Looking forward for the new features. Robertgombos ( talk) 22:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ve actually tagged one of them. Since there’s so many of them coming in, my feeling is that the editors should be encouraged to find (if possible) at least one English language source per article, for the sake of good practice. This is based on a loose interpretation of wp:NONENG. It’s not mandatory that sources be in English, but since there’s so many of them coming in I think it would add value to the collection of articles were we to suggest looking for English sources, while encouraging the great efforts being made at the same time. I don't suggest tagging articles which can be verified through the sources, I probably went overboard with that more citations tag, but leaving suggestions when completing the review might be a good idea.
Edaham ( talk) 02:18, 25 May 2018 (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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I have come across a few list articles that only contain a couple of redlinked entries no bluelinked ones and no sources. I originally prodded them as for me they we're in contradiction with the WP:CSC for stand alone lists. At the top of the SETINDEX page it states that the guidelines for the articles are the stand alone list guidelines. They were unprodded and I entered into a lengthy discussion where I was told that it was perfectly acceptable for a particular project to have these kind of articles. I wanted to know if it is common practice to allow all Set index articles to follow this format or not. I do not want to get into another heated discussion with project members for nothing and get told that I should not have prodded them without asking the project if they were ok with it first. Could anyone advise me ? Dom from Paris ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Per the RfC, the page creation limitation enacted during ACTRIAL is now permanently implemented. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday evening when checking my watchlist, I noticed that the article Nicolas Moussiopoulos had been edited quite a bit. Checking the diffs, this is how the Nicolas article looked after CASSIOPEIA added tags to it: [1]. I have had issues with them in the past, see Special:Permalink/838299176#Alessandro Nolli Brianzi and Twins of Evil: The Second Coming Tour have moved to draft page. But, that's not what I'm here for. On Nicolas Moussiopoulos, the {{cn}} spam was soon after removed, and CASSIOPEIA readded it. I found this quite concerning, and decided to go through their past edits and see if this has happened elsewhere. Evidently, it has.
I have only gone back about 6 days in checking pages, so there's probably more tha I didn't see yet. I'd also like to note that many of their additions of tags occur in seperate edits just a few seconds apart, which I found odd. Before commenting here, please see the discussion on their talk page. I am not here to explicitly recommend anything be done, as this is not my area of knowledge; I'd just like to bring this to the attention of involved sysops and coordinators. Pinging primefac who accepted them to the AfC WikiProject. Thank you, and happy editing. Vermont ( talk) 10:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm interested to know if anyone has any opinion on Global Music Awards. The article and the award do not smell right to me, and I'm wondering if it is promotional. The judging process appears to be dubious and self-perpetuating (the judges are largely past winners [2]), what its entry criteria are (it appears that you can enter it yourself, but may have to pay [3]), and the winners are apparently largely unknown apart from some recognizable names. Seems like a self-promotional award site to me. Hzh ( talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
When special:newpages says "xyz pages reviewed this week", does it mean last 7 days or calendar week? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The Page Curation tool reports 'unable to find target location' i.e. Redirects for Discussion, when sending redirects to RfD. Could somebody please stat a bug report at Bugzilla. Maybe Kaldari could address this issue directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Because so many of the articles we review are moved to draftspace leaving a redirect automatically tagged for CSD, I propose NPP automatically grant the right "suppressredirect". Thoughts? Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
hello, from 6 hours ago the curatiom toolbar just don't pop up when I am aboutto take reviewing of a page. Tried to check SQL the script is still there. any remedies ? Quek157 ( talk) 01:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying without success to nominate this article for PROD via BLP notice board and on the article's head. It is a BLP with the only source being a link to the baidu search engine - i.e. it has no sources. I'm feeling like I'm getting a bit militant because I have started reverting people who remove the PROD notice without fixing the issue. Please advise. Cheers. Edaham ( talk) 04:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Chips, cheese and gravy had been a redirect to Poutine. A user has (twice) removed this redirect. At the moment all that exists is an infobox (see this [4]). It seems like this user is still developing the page but for future reference would I review this as a blank page or treat it like it has content? Looking for some guidance about this article but also concept more generally in case I were to see it again. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
How might you patrol a geographic location like Kalyvia_Sochas that has no sources? -- JustBerry ( talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Could still use some refs, so the tag is appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I would mark as unref and send the creator a message saying 'Please add your references. External links just means suggestions for further reading. We really need to know what your sources were so we know the information is accurate. Could you please add them clearly, preferably WP:INLINECITED?' On the whole, people do respond by adding them. Boleyn ( talk) 08:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
How does it come about that editor Azerbanjo, who on May 9th created the new article Bionix Radiation Therapy, has only two actions in their contribution history whereas looking at the editor's talk page it is apparent they have made other contributions? I see I asked them to disclose whether they had a conflict of interest a month ago and they have not done so. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that despite the fact that ACTRIAL has now become permanent the backlog is still growing and currently approaching 5K articles.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal for the community to impose General Sanctions on cyrptocurrencies and blockchain has been posted and might be of interest to New Page Reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 07:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Editathons: upcoming sessions 1 through 30 June: "Wiki Loves Pride", "Women singers/Women+Song", "Geo-focus: Russia/Soviet Union", and "Women and GLAM". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The backlog is currently at 4800 articles and dates back to very early March. We have been generally keeping the numbers steady, but the start of ACREQ has not resulted in an appreciable reduction of the backlog as hoped (due to a drop in reviewing activity following ACREQ). I can't fault anyone for taking a well deserved break, as I myself have also been on an extended wikibreak, but special thanks go to those that have continued chipping away at the coal face. Thank you!
We have only about two weeks buffer from the Index Point at present and the shape of the backlog is also a little less healthy than it was in my last update: there is a pretty big bulge around the middle of March that is headed our way, so we need to be prepared to make sure that we can deal with it and ensure that it doesn't push past the index point. Review from the back if you can, our long term target is still to keep the backlog below 30 days, so we still have a long way to go. Cheers all and keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have always tried to emphasise on increasing the number of reviewers. Thats why i had created the invitation message template. But unfortunately, lately my overall activity has decreased a lot. If in the next newsletter we can say something like "reviewing 5 pages a day" would cripple the backlog, that'd be great. I mean, if we consider that only 100 reviewers would review 7 pages a day (a combined average), that would be 700 pages per day. Then within 12-13 days, we will have the backlog on the same levels of pending changes, that is, "as they come-in". That would still be like 400 per day though. @ Kudpung: I am not sure what you are referring to with "If the AfD people can do it, then I very sure we can." Would you elaborate please? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Kudpung: This power law curve of New Page Patrollers that I prepared at the end of 2017 will always be a thing. If you graph the editors that I invited that joined, the same shape curve is seen. i.e. if you invite 100 people, a half dozen of them will do half of the work, and the other half will be done mostly by about 30 people. This isn't going to change, but if we want to get more of those half dozens, we need to get more groups of 100 to join. The return rate of invites is somewhere between 10-15%, so that means inviting another 1000. The place to continue is where I found the last cohort: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits#1001–2000. I finished the top 1000 last time. Template:NPR invite is also still there waiting to be used. I'll go back and invite more users at some point, but it is rather frustrating to get a huge backlash onto me every time one of my invitees fail. I got a lot of flak from you for invitees that failed due to stuff that I couldn't have known about (the one you brought up specifically who I won't name here), or for user activity level, which wasn't actually a requirement of the user right at the time (this has been subsequently clarified). Carefully vetting every user is something that needs to be done before they are granted the user right, but doing so before inviting quickly becomes prohibitively time consuming, which is why I stopped inviting people in the first place. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand you power law argument only too well and I can't dispute it, it's exactly the problem we're faced with. We also have over 1,000 admins but only about 30 of us are doing the bulk of the work but one thing is for sure, if they don't use their tools, here comes a time when they wake up without them - and that's what happens at AfC. but if you want 5,000 patrollers to get enough to do the work of 500, bear in mind quis custodiet ipsos custodes? at the moment it's only me and DGG and we've both got other things we would prefer to be doing. There's a scary undertermined number of reviewers out there who are offering to write articles for money, do you want to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse? It's all happened before.
It's not time consuming if you organise your regex or quarry or whatever you folks do for datamining, and enter enough criteria like we did when we grandfathered the first batch of reviewers. You'll certainly not get a lot of thanks from admins if you swamp PERM with a lot of extra work - particularly when you leave them with the unsavoury job of researching and declining 15-25% of them, we don't just read the user names and click a button. I don't even work there as much as I used to but when I take a look I see applicants yelling because their requests haven't been processed within 24 hours or getting really nasty when we decline. Anyone in that much of a hurry is only wanting to fill the top shelf of their wardrobe. If you want me to give you a set of criteria for you to compile a search string, let me know. It might keep your computer running all night, but those are things Scott and I had to do in the past for NPP for less urgent matters than we are discussing today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
If you are determined to organise a backlog drive, let me know the dates in the next 24 hours before I publish the The Signpost - I have an article about NPP in it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. publication probably withn the next 48 hours. I'll also take a look at the NPR newsletter draft and discuss it with
Tony, maybe one should be sent out soon.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 01:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, I have a busy day in the office today. I'll do the search criteria list this evening. Signpost notice for the backlog drive is done including an appeal for more reviewers. Publishing in about 10 hours. Newsletter is ready but I'll send it nearer the end of the month in case there are new developments - especially to the WMF work on the feed, by which time I might also have news about the upcoming coord election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 04:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have just nominated Barima Sidney for speedy deletion for G11 and G12 using page curation. A notice has appeared on the creator's page and another on the article's talk page, but no speedy deletion template has appeared on the article page. What should I do next? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH (WMF) and Kaldari at WMF. Now that ACTRIAL has become permanent, we're expecting a lot of traffic to shift from the NPR process to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.
To help equip AfC reviewers to handle that traffic, the Community Tech team are going to be dedicating some bandwidth during May and June to improving that process. We began a good discussion about which improvements would be most impactful toward helping AfC get high quality drafts into the main namespace quickly, and we've settled on a plan. I'm posting here because we think that the planned work will also benefit the NPR process, and I want to make sure anyone interested will be able to weigh in.
Tagging Kudpung, Insertcleverphrasehere, Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Vexations, and Rentier, who all participated in that discussion (thank you!), in case they want to chime in here.
Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the idea is that AfC does not currently have an efficient way to prioritize drafts for review, and the New Pages Feed is an existing interface that could help. The plan is:
Though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC and NPR communities. I'm going to be posting regular updates on that project page, including mockups of different ways that the changes could be implemented so that we can get thoughts and reactions from reviewers. It's definitely going to be critical to get feedback from this group on how much impact (hopefully positive) the changes will have on the usage of the New Pages Feed.
-- MMiller (WMF) ( talk) 17:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes very helpful. There are actually three kinds of Drafts that should be sortable 1. Submitted to AfC awaiting review. 2. Declined by AfC (might be submitted again) 3. Not submitted to AfC (may not even be tagged). Group 3 is worth looking at for attack, Spam and other problematic pages as well as useful pages that could be promoted since some people seem to think Drafts magically move to mainspace on their own. All types of Drafts could benefit from patrolling. Legacypac ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a software engineer but it seems easier to include all of Draftspace with a filter for AfC Submitted tags than to exclude a block of untagged pages. All Drafts are temporary.
1. Draft created 2. Draft MAY be submitted AfC 2.a Draft may be accepted and becomes a redirect to mainspace 2 b Draft is declined and may be resubmitted or not 3. A patroller notices the Draft and seeks deletion (afc or not) OR 4. The creator or someone else moves it to mainspace and title becomes a redirect or it is simply redirected without a move (topic exists) 5. Draft reaches 6 months unedited and gets considered for WP:G13
(Sorry hard to draw a flowchart with words)
The entire universe of Drafts (other than redirects) is therefore finite and somewhat stable in total numbers. It is (currently poorly) managed as a backlog of unreviewed pages. Adding Drafts to Page Curation Tool will greatly assist in helping to manage all unreviewed pages. Patrolers may choose to improve pages they encounter even if they are not ready to move them to mainspace yet. Arguably marking "Reviewed" would usually main moving it to mainspace. Otherwise sooner or later the page will need to be tagged for deletion or redirected and does not need to be "reviewed". Legacypac ( talk) 16:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF), as a NPP, the biggest issue, in my opinin, were always the way the process rolls. Rentier made a great job creating the NPP browse, I often use it to select topics I am familiar with. I've also seen a tendency of tagging without any attempt to improve the article although many of them, doing a quick Google search, have reliable references. Reviewer should be encouraged to try to improve an article prior to filling them with tags and moving to the next one. I feel this would be a constructive behaviour and beneficial for the entire Wikipedia community. Looking forward for the new features. Robertgombos ( talk) 22:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ve actually tagged one of them. Since there’s so many of them coming in, my feeling is that the editors should be encouraged to find (if possible) at least one English language source per article, for the sake of good practice. This is based on a loose interpretation of wp:NONENG. It’s not mandatory that sources be in English, but since there’s so many of them coming in I think it would add value to the collection of articles were we to suggest looking for English sources, while encouraging the great efforts being made at the same time. I don't suggest tagging articles which can be verified through the sources, I probably went overboard with that more citations tag, but leaving suggestions when completing the review might be a good idea.
Edaham ( talk) 02:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)