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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of circumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this instance, the user is an admin. Autopatrolled comes bundled with adminship. What should we be doing in cases like these? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Missvain, Kudpung. My take on this whole thing is that Kudpung saw some early stub work from an admin that was somewhat dubiously sourced. Having had a look at a bunch of them, I think there is a bit of a specialty source knowledge gap here (as Missvain suggested), and also a bit of Kudpung expecting a high standard from autopatrolled users and admins. Overall my take on the articles is that a few of them were borderline as presented (when Kudpug first came across them), but that notability can be established, depending on how you weight various sources which aren't obviously high quality but probably are. In any case I don't see serious issues here from Missvain, nor do I think that Kudpung's actions and coming here and asking for advice were unwarranted. I think everyone could do with calming the farm and stepping away from the situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"anyone can edit"idea is a foolish platitude and not something that's actually real. We are already overwhelmed with "marginal" entries and don't need more. We stop editors all the time and ought to do more to be exclusive. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
"great editor in fantastic standing who contributes substantial quality work"needs to actually do quality work, rather than receive your free pass. You may recall, we still enforce expectations on even the most-accomplished editors. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems the consensus is that there is no need to unbundle these privileges. Can we close out this discussion now? - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 03:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday when New Page Patrolling I reviewed Richard Rudzitis and moved on to the next article in the feed. I then thought that I should really have sent the creator of Richard Rudzentis a message. So I went back and sent the message via the page creation tool, and the message ended up on my talk page rather than that of the intended recipient! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Check out this series of page moves re Patrick Kogler in quick succession from Draft space, to Wikipedia space, to User space, and finally to Main space [1].
The editor in question has moved pages before without any issues.
The article was moved to Draft space by Lapablo a few days ago with concerns of promotional/advertising issues (and thus probably UPE issues).
My question is whether this is some kind of new technique to by-pass AFC, OR, just an editor making a series of coincidental mistakes? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Further thought MER-C. When we find a certified (and skilled) UPE operator per this case, should we not run a checkuser on all related accounts that have edited their articles, and even check any patrollers who have "curated" their articles (for signs of patrollers who are UPEs)? Ultimately, we don't have great technology in combatting these editors (per our previous discussions), and they seem very familiar with our system and how to re-create themselves. However, when we do find a strong case, should we not use it fully (e.g. some these guys probably all work in the same building, and thus share an IP)? Ultimately, NPP is where these types of editors are discovered (and NPP is clearly a problem for them). thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I came across this new article while on patrol: Darryl Castelino. Would the text copied from his military award constitute a copyright violation? Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be safe I will forward the discussion to WP:CQ as suggested by QuiteUnusual above. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs)
Nocturnal306 was a temporary New Page Patroller who has now been globally locked due to sockpuppeting and COI. Their reviews will need checking. *sigh*. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We've lost Onel5969. I won't go into details but as one of the most active participants on NPP, his contributions will be missed. We will all need to pitch in to pull up the slack. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And that's all she wrote folks. I took a few days off to donate a kidney on December 30, and when I came back the concerted, orchestrated wikihounding by several editors was not only back, but ramped up. Don't need that type of aggravation. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 TT me 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like somebody should be reaching out/emailing Onel5969 here? They are a massive loss to NPP (potentially the end of the viability of NPP), and a very nice and valuable editor to WP. Isn't there more we could/should do here? Britishfinance ( talk) 00:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed several recent articles created by LeungChow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Three have been speedied. Four more are in mainspace. But I find the editing pattern unusual. Several new bios by a new user in a short time frame, some with excessive citations, on a variety of people who all seem marginally notable. Maybe UPE. Is this a matter to bring up at WP:COIN? MB 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looking through the (deleted) contributions:
This is an obvious spammer. Indeffed. MER-C 09:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I ask new-page patrollers to please be wary on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to Reliable Sources Noticeboard) HLHJ ( talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
Hello everyone, I am reviewing Stile antico. Earwig's Copyvio detector identified two sources of potential copyright violation. One of them states that it is quoting from Wikipedia so no worries there. However, the other source is an Amazon review from October 2017: two substantial paragraphs. Is there an easier way to figure out if the Amazon review predates the Wikipedia content other than going through Diffs in the article history? Also, this article appears to have had significant material merged recently. Thanks for any help. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
For anyone not watching WT:NCORP or WP:RSN (although really we should all at least be watching the former), there's an ongoing discussion about whether Michelin stars establish notability for restaurants and whether we should adopt that standard as a formal SNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
is the tool down, I cant get it(copyvio Earwig detector)?, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So today, I created the article Apple Watch Series 4 from a redirect. However, I am seeing the curation toolbar for this article. Is this an error? Taewangkorea ( talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. MyNameIsMars ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi All, Just to inform you guys that Earwing's Coyvio Detector has not been working a a few days now. I have raised phabricator:T243736]. Also see - Copyvio Detector not working @The Earwig' talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk)
Do we have a tag for articles that violate WP:NSEASONS? Example 2020 Charlotte Independence season. There is little chance we can actually stop this stats spam given the propensity for football editors to scream Keep at AfD, but we can at least tag it for cleanup, but we don't seem to have a tag for this common issue that I come across all the time. Is there one that we do have that applies or could someone make one? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. So I just came across Qianjiang Century City and realized that all global rollbackers have autopatrol. For GRs that do not have local autopatrol, would it make sense for a bot to automatically unpatrol the pages so that they go through the feed like normal (not saying there is anything wrong with that page or that users creations, but in general)? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest. Sdkb ( talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add links to each entry in the New Pages feed to Special:Undelete search? They would function something like the archive search links I add to my suspicious page lists. The rationale is to make the detection of non-exact title reposts easier, which is particularly relevant for dealing with UPE. (This will, of course, be useful for admins only.)
This requires either an interface administrator to find the appropriate system message to edit, or a straight forward (hopefully!) patch to the software.
MER-C
10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone give me a link for the redirect autopatrolled page, or maybe add a link to an NPP page if it isn't already there? I can't find it, regards Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I reviewed Scary Mask and intended to refer it to AfD because the article as written does not satisfy WP:NSONG. However, I had sticky fingers and when I tried to move my content from the PROD box to the regular AfD box I accidentally submitted it to as a PROD. How can I change this to a regular AfD? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
needed at Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Series please. I moved it to draft space and left a note for the author, but it was simply moved back. I don't want to get into a move war. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Also: TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, TCEC Season 4 - duplicates of drafts so I cannot draftify them, CSD declined as not a valid critereon DannyS712 ( talk) 00:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've been noticing quite a few new articles with only a single reference showing up in the new pages feed, often meeting one SNG or another, and have even noticed a few that were created by autopatrolled users/admins. I usually tag these for 'more references', or in some cases add refs myself (if I remotely care about the topic and they are easily accessible; I'm not going to bend over backwards for the 4000th footballer article to be created this week). What is everyone else's approach to these sorts of articles? (Articles that have only a single reference but meet an Subject Notability Guideline)? If this is unnacceptable, as I believe it is (at the top level of policy it is contrary to WP:5P2, which requires "sources", plural) what should we do about admins and autopatrolled users who create articles like this? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 22:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I had been vaguely aware of new page patrolling in the past, though not of this project. I recently created an article (not my first one) and, after wondering for a few days why it was not turning up in Google searches, I found on Quora (which may not have provided the right information) that WP articles that are not patrolled are not indexed by Google (unless they are 90+ days old). What I find confusing is why there are unpatrolled pages from before 2010 – it makes me wonder how priorities are determined. My article was not tagged for any potential problem, is not an orphan, etc. I suppose I could join the project instead of complaining, but I don't feel fully confident in my understanding of the CSD and would probably be overzealous in their application.
Anyway, feel free to delete this post if it proves unhelpful (which it most likely is). Toccata quarta ( talk) 08:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. It's happened a couple of times. I've nominated a page for deletion using the NPP tool and it has placed the nomination notice on the page, notified the user, and added the entry to the AfD log, but hasn't created the AfD page. I've then had to re-write my reasoning through twinkle and re nominate before cleaning up the mess. Any help would be appreciated (Note: I let the process finish before pressing close, so it isn't me preventing it from creating the AfD page). Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 20:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate apparently just added five new languages to its service: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. [1] While I can't say that I've ever come across an article with sources in Kinyarwanda, Turkmen or Uyghur, the addition of Tatar and Odia will likely be of use. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
References
I received this massage on 13 February, unfortunately now at NewPagesFeed the blue review button is not active for me. what's the reason? Saff V. ( talk) 12:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rethinking draft space which NPRs might like to see. Regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 08:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm experienced at policy but brand new at page patrol. I'm about to reject my first one. Andrew James Hartsfield Someone else tagged it as suspected paid editing which is probably true. The user name has only edited this article and appears to have been created from the article subject's name. Obviously written by a much more experienced editor. Fails notability. None of the references cover him, they are just places that mention him or have a sentence about him. The big flow chart ends up at AFD. So should I AFD this and mark it as patrolled/reviewed? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Where is the appropriate place for me to suggest that a certain page reviewer is causing issues (although acting in good faith). See /info/en/?search=User_talk:Somatochlora#Ways_to_improve_Somatochlora_meridionalis where the reviewer added tags to a page that don't make sense (including suggesting that the lead is an issue on a short stub without a lead). When I asked for clarification they seemed unable to understand my concerns and instead brought up some unrelated issues, including a suggestion that I replace a grammatically correct phrase with a grammatically incorrect one. And since then has not responded despite having made other edits. Not sure what I should be doing here but this does not seem appropriate to me. Thanks Somatochlora ( talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:SHORTDESC, all articles should eventually have a short description template. It would be helpful to add that in the reviewing instructions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions provides instructions on how to add short descriptions. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, one of our Admins,(sorry, experienced editor) was outed this week on an Indian website in part for their editing of this article. He was also threatened and has retired, which is unfortunate but sensible. The group behind this is having a discussion on the same page, now blacklisted, about setting up forks to tell the "truth" about the riots. It would be appreciated if any attempts to set up a nmw page on this subject was brought to either my attention, any of the other editors at
User talk:Doug Weller#ECP for Talk:North East Delhi riots? or
WP:AN. THey'd probably use the word Delhi in the title. Hopefully this won't happen, but I'm asking just in case I miss it. Thanks. Oh, almost forgot, I don't watch this page oso if anyone replies here please ping me.
Doug Weller
talk
19:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Have there been any recent changes to when articles are released for search engine indexing? I created a new article 107 days ago (November 19, 2019) and though 90 days have passed, Google hasn't picked it up for indexing, and Wikipedia's policies regarding releasing an article for indexing seem, to me, pretty opaque and hard to find. -- Canned Soul ( talk) 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there any limit per day when it comes to patrolling new pages per editor? 157.119.186.230 ( talk) 10:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request to have the article title Applause Entertainment unprotected so the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited can be moved there however after looking at the article I felt the article wouldn't have passed WP:NPR and it seems to have skipped WP:NPR according to the logs. I placed the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited back into the NPR queue for a second opinion. Just wanted to give a heads up on what I did. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 08:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
What do reviewers think about Arbcom clerks being granted auto patrolled so that case pages don’t need to be patrolled? Helpful? Not helpful? Thanks. Levivich dubious – discuss 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewers may want to have a look at a recent Headbomb/ SD0001 production: a script to automatically highlight various levels of unreliable sources. Very useful for getting a single glance impression of the quality of a reference section. It doesn't find all fluff, but it finds notorious fluff, which is already a big timesaver :) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly just fed up with stuff like this: 2020 Fed Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B (Tallinn). Honestly. How the hell are we supposed to keep up with the flood of undersourced blatant fails of WP:NOTSTATS? I have no idea why people keep flooding the wiki with this useless garbage. There are plenty of sports statistics pages that people can go to for this sort of info, why should we be a web host for it? It's such a huge sink on editor and reviewer time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Such guidelines only show whether a player is likely to meet GNG, not exempt him/her of the guideline. However, this seems to have been forgotten as editors counter claims that a player doesn't meet GNG despite meeting NFOOTY with the argument that NFOOTY is sufficient. We can't do much about the problem, except for praying the Serenity Prayer and focussing our attention elsewhere. -- MrClog ( talk) 19:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Mildly promotional but notable topics are the current bane of NPP, and have been for a long time. We currently lack good tools to deal with them. I've thought for a while that suggesting a policy change to the COI guideline that supports stubifying new promo articles on notable topics would be a good idea.
Please see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/COISTUBIFY, where I have a bunch more explanation of why I think this is needed and a draft of the proposed section to be added to the COI guideline. Can I please ask that people provide feedback if they have any, good or bad! Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO stubifying would be tougher / more complicated than it sounds.Maybe a real example of a mildly-promotional but notable one would be good for the discussion. North8000 ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The sidebar when I was looking through pages has disappeared, how do I get it back? Govvy ( talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
O, thought you guys needed help, don't know why you temp'ed it. Govvy ( talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I’ve just learned there is such a thing as a redirect class rating at AfC. If a new article has already been rated as redirect class should I go ahead and review it? Is there any point? Thanks. Mccapra ( talk) 10:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent RfC on the reliability of the
Times of India had an outcome of between no consensus and generally unreliable
(
RSP entry). It is a source that is used quite a bit for Indian subjects, particularly for films and actors. I'm generally not in favor of hunting down and purging old articles about non-controversial subjects when notability or source-reliability standards change, but new page reviewers should be aware going forward that we can be stricter about articles supported by trivial coverage in the ToI. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I started here a few weeks ago after you recruited my on my talk page and have done a little over a hundred. These are a lot of work to do well, you folks that are near-keeping up with the firehose of new articles definitely deserve some type of award! And the knowledge needed to do it well is even greater than the rquirements that you put out. Beyond a super-fluent knowledge of wp:not and wp:notability you really need to also be very fluent on all of the SNG's just to get started. And despite y'all reviewing it looks like about 600 articles per day the chart says that we're falling behind.
I keep running across something that is very time consuming and have been thinking that "why should the NPP folks need to be doing that?" The typical might be an example of an artist/song/movie/person/business in another country where where is zero indication of establishing notability in the article. Nothing specific relating to a a SNG, and no suitable wp:gng coverage in the sources. So for a couple that I sent to AFD, the folks there starting doing research on coverage including translating from other languages and determined / decided that suitable coverage exists. So now I'm thinking I shouldn't have sent those there and that NPP has the responsibility to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist? Either way (NPP or AFD folks) it seems that if there is nothing notability related in the article/sourcing, the work burden is on the NPP/AFD folks to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist. Why can't it be the editor's responsibility to put the sources etc. in to establish notability rather than on an overloaded NPP/AFD person to do the research to basically "prove a negative" for a topic when they don't? Couldn't the process be to drop those and let them be recreated when sources are found? This seems to be more of a "standard practice" question at npp/afd rather than a policy question. North8000 ( talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've recently found the copyvio tools to be unreliable and broken... Today I keep getting 502 Bad gateway from Earwig-derived tools. I also can't open Earwig's tool directly, so there seems to be an issue with it in general. What's going on? Anyone have a clue? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
getting the above response again only did 2 reviews today-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
wondering if there is alternate copyvio detector or method to check article (reviewed only 2 redirect) …..was able to get the detector to run after 1/2 hour trying( now 4 reviews out of usual 6)?
I sent the creator of a page a message which included a Google Scholar search result. It displayed correctly on the article talk-page, but as a large red error message on his talk. That seems to be because {{ Bq}} can't handle an equals sign. Could we perhaps either fix the template, or switch to a simpler message that doesn't use it? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty new at this (~130 reviews) but an experienced editor. I keep running into a similar situation (maybe 10 times) where a topic pretty clearly doesn't pass Wp:GNG nor any SNG. Then when I AFD it, someone says that there is some accepted practice for keeping which is not in any of the guidelines. A recent example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedchha railway station.
My ONLY concern is trying to do the job properly. I'm starting to read these as a hint that maybe I shouldn't have taken it to AFD. Any advice on this? Are there really a lot of unwritten standard practices in play that exempt some topics / articles from GNG/SNG's? If so, is there a faster way to learn the unwritten rules than just trying to glean the legit ones from all of the "keep" arguments at AFD? Or is it common for the reviewer to just follow guidelines and policies when AFD'ing, and then let the community at AFD decide to apply the unwritten exceptions. Or should I just stick to topics where I know that there are no unwritten rules and leave the others for more experienced rviewers. ? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD" applies. MrClog ( talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I feel somewhat silly asking this, as I suspect there is something right in front of me that I am missing... but I cannot see the page curation tool. I have confirmed I have the
new page review right, when I look at the new pages feed I see a "review" button... but after hitting that review button...nothing. In the left toolbar (under tools) "curate this article" does not appear. Suggestions....? Thank you, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall reviewing any prior article that has been 'deleted priorly'...except this one. Due to the current pandemic and the need for information, after having looked at the article, I have reviewed it, should anyone be in disagreement, can give a good reason why repurposed medication should not have its own article, and can speak to the specific points raised (each individual medications pros and cons then please un-review, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that I'm stuck with a fundamentally wrong understanding of the notability requirements for songs ( WP:NSONG) and albums ( WP:NALBUM). Since in frequency as newly created articles these are second only to Indian entrepreneurs, I'm requesting some feedback here.
By my understanding, none of the criteria given at these notability guidelines constitutes a pass - they merely are indicators that it might be worth someone's while to go looking for the multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label
. If those can be shown, then notability is demonstrated. If you can't find them, then sufficient notability is lacking (and we are looking at a redirect in most cases). Right or wrong?
This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song)), where people are again busy claiming that "it passes WP:NSONG #X" and that this shows notability. Not a rare occurrence, but this time it's not just coming from those knwon to be constitutionally unable to vote anything but "Keep" but also from some who I suspect should have some understanding of what the guidelines mean. So some input on interpretation would be good. I don't enjoy the battles over song notability at the best of times, and could do without charging in with faulty preconceptions. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way to see who reviewed a page? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I know that the instructions already talk about being careful with top level tags. I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP and thought I might make an observation on a communication dichotomy. Let's say that an article passes NPP, but like an average newer article has no serious problems but is still weak / needing work in numerous areas. To the NPP, clicking on a tag in curation might be seen as saying "here's some advice on what to work on". To an editor, a top level tag is usually seen a scarlet letter that says "there is something seriously wrong with your article." There are obviously solutions (such as just leaving reviewer notes) but I just thought it might be helpful to note this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP. Thanks for the guidance above that WP:AFDCO is a good guide to where common practice overrides the notability guidlines.
Recently I AFD'd Arpine which is a given name / first name ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpine). It pretty clearly didn't pass WP:GNG, and there is no applicable SNG. There is also no mention of first/given names at WP:AFDCO. (Also, it seems borderline on wp:not a dictionary). The result at AFD was that it's considered common practice for articles on first names/given names to bypass wp:notability requirements. I was wondering if there is a second list beyond WP:AFDCO where it's common practice to bypass wp:notability requirements? I know Wikipedia well enough that fuzzy situations are the norm; I'm more concerned that I'm doing the job properly. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
What's with the page curation tool using the following language?
I would use the word "start" instead of "prepend". I have never seen the word "prepend" before. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Has the following article been patrolled/reviewed and indexed?
The article was created on January 27. I searched the New pages feed ( Special:NewPagesFeed) with the filter set to that date, state reviewed/unreviewed, type all others and name space Article, and it’s not there. Why? I also checked the reviewed and patrolled logs on the history of that article. Nothing. But those logs seem to be empty for all articles. Why?
This shouldn’t be so hard. What am I missing?
— В²C ☎ 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In a discussion (intentionally not linked) about a particular NPP, the idea of where and how to best communicate feedback has arisen. Through the curation toolbar, on an unnreviewed article, we currently have two options. Option 1 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk page while placing a tag. Option 2 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk and leave a message on the article's talk page. Francis Schonken in that discussion raised the reasonable point that creating multiple discussions on the same topic is normally a bad practice. Given that we're not likely to be able to change the programming of the curation toolbar anytime soon, are there any thoughts about how we can best communicate? Especially in cases where there might be content related comments (e.g. suggestions about sourcing)? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Advice appreciated here please: a couple of times while reviewing I’ve found a page that I want to send straight to AfD. If I use the curation toolbar it’s easy but doesn’t seem to add deletion discussions. If I use twinkle it’s easy to add the deletion discussions but I presume there’s then no traceable link between the review process and the AfD. What is best to do? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay so I'm a bit out of my element here 'cause NPP ain't my bag, but there are several issues here. To start, "Patrol" is different from "Page curation": the former is part of mediawiki core, the latter is part of the PageTriage extension. I don't know exactly how the various tools work, but AFAICT:
The different behavior makes sense to me: patrol is the OG, is its own thing, and is part of the main software. Page curation is an extension, a special add-on that builds a new system on top of what already existed, so it tries to play nice and hooks into patrol as best it can. The patrol function has no real knowledge of page curation's existence I don't think. This means that a patrolled page can subsequently be curated, but a curated page is, by default, already patrolled.
As far as Twinkle is concerned:
rcid
needed to patrol the page. This is bad.
I think that roughly answers/addresses most of the above? If folks want a change to how CSD/XfD/PROD/tag handles patrolling, holla back. I can probably handle the Twinkle side of things in between SAHP and existential dread, but I think my main question for y'all would be, if Twinkle eventually supported both patrolling and curation, how should Twinkle handle a page? If I didn't confuse myself, the options are 1) patrol (patrol log, no curation log); 2) curate (patrol log and curation log); or 3) patrol then curation (patrol log and curation log). It's not clear to me that 2 and 3 are notably different, except that in case 3 the patrol log entry will have the PageTriage tag whereas in case 2 it won't.
On a more personal note, this whole area is fakakta and I have no idea how any of you make heads or tails of any of it! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
patroldisabled: Recent changes patrol disabled
. Looking
directly into the database, the page does exist in the recentchanges table with rc_type = 1 (new page) and rc_patrolled = 0 (unpatrolled), which suggests it should be patrollable. EDIT: trying to patrol it using the API with revid gave that error, but using rcid instead (taken from the db query result) succeeded.By means of belated update, I've proposed some changes to Twinkle, basically converting everything (CSD/XfD/PROD/tag) to use the triage action instead of the patrol action, with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use. Should cover all the bases here? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
page.patrol()
will be page.triage()
. There should be no visible changes except that pages will be curated/triaged/reviewed/whatever-verb-of-choiced instead of patrolled, thus removed from NewPagesFeed and NewPages. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use(which I assumed was a recommendation to reviewers after this proposed fix, not a complete deprecation but rather using a revamped CSD/PROD functionality in triage), I was wondering if there would be an alternative means (if necessary) to continue logging. If it's merely a code change, and it is not recommended that we do not use Twinkle, there's no cause for concern. ComplexRational ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The changes to Twinkle have now been implemented. Let me know if something broke! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This unreviewed page by @ Noswall59: is a list of lists, and none of the lists on this page have been reviewed either. I'd review them, but I'm really not very sure what to make of these pages. It seems like information that's more appropriate for Wikidata than Wikipedia. What do more experienced patrollers suggest doing with these lists? Mcampany ( talk) 00:35, 4 May 2020 (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 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of circumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this instance, the user is an admin. Autopatrolled comes bundled with adminship. What should we be doing in cases like these? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Missvain, Kudpung. My take on this whole thing is that Kudpung saw some early stub work from an admin that was somewhat dubiously sourced. Having had a look at a bunch of them, I think there is a bit of a specialty source knowledge gap here (as Missvain suggested), and also a bit of Kudpung expecting a high standard from autopatrolled users and admins. Overall my take on the articles is that a few of them were borderline as presented (when Kudpug first came across them), but that notability can be established, depending on how you weight various sources which aren't obviously high quality but probably are. In any case I don't see serious issues here from Missvain, nor do I think that Kudpung's actions and coming here and asking for advice were unwarranted. I think everyone could do with calming the farm and stepping away from the situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
"anyone can edit"idea is a foolish platitude and not something that's actually real. We are already overwhelmed with "marginal" entries and don't need more. We stop editors all the time and ought to do more to be exclusive. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
"great editor in fantastic standing who contributes substantial quality work"needs to actually do quality work, rather than receive your free pass. You may recall, we still enforce expectations on even the most-accomplished editors. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It seems the consensus is that there is no need to unbundle these privileges. Can we close out this discussion now? - Chris.sherlock ( talk) 03:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday when New Page Patrolling I reviewed Richard Rudzitis and moved on to the next article in the feed. I then thought that I should really have sent the creator of Richard Rudzentis a message. So I went back and sent the message via the page creation tool, and the message ended up on my talk page rather than that of the intended recipient! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Check out this series of page moves re Patrick Kogler in quick succession from Draft space, to Wikipedia space, to User space, and finally to Main space [1].
The editor in question has moved pages before without any issues.
The article was moved to Draft space by Lapablo a few days ago with concerns of promotional/advertising issues (and thus probably UPE issues).
My question is whether this is some kind of new technique to by-pass AFC, OR, just an editor making a series of coincidental mistakes? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Further thought MER-C. When we find a certified (and skilled) UPE operator per this case, should we not run a checkuser on all related accounts that have edited their articles, and even check any patrollers who have "curated" their articles (for signs of patrollers who are UPEs)? Ultimately, we don't have great technology in combatting these editors (per our previous discussions), and they seem very familiar with our system and how to re-create themselves. However, when we do find a strong case, should we not use it fully (e.g. some these guys probably all work in the same building, and thus share an IP)? Ultimately, NPP is where these types of editors are discovered (and NPP is clearly a problem for them). thanks. Britishfinance ( talk) 13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I came across this new article while on patrol: Darryl Castelino. Would the text copied from his military award constitute a copyright violation? Thanks. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
To be safe I will forward the discussion to WP:CQ as suggested by QuiteUnusual above. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs)
Nocturnal306 was a temporary New Page Patroller who has now been globally locked due to sockpuppeting and COI. Their reviews will need checking. *sigh*. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We've lost Onel5969. I won't go into details but as one of the most active participants on NPP, his contributions will be missed. We will all need to pitch in to pull up the slack. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And that's all she wrote folks. I took a few days off to donate a kidney on December 30, and when I came back the concerted, orchestrated wikihounding by several editors was not only back, but ramped up. Don't need that type of aggravation. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 TT me 20:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like somebody should be reaching out/emailing Onel5969 here? They are a massive loss to NPP (potentially the end of the viability of NPP), and a very nice and valuable editor to WP. Isn't there more we could/should do here? Britishfinance ( talk) 00:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed several recent articles created by LeungChow ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Three have been speedied. Four more are in mainspace. But I find the editing pattern unusual. Several new bios by a new user in a short time frame, some with excessive citations, on a variety of people who all seem marginally notable. Maybe UPE. Is this a matter to bring up at WP:COIN? MB 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looking through the (deleted) contributions:
This is an obvious spammer. Indeffed. MER-C 09:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I ask new-page patrollers to please be wary on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to Reliable Sources Noticeboard) HLHJ ( talk) 19:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
Hello everyone, I am reviewing Stile antico. Earwig's Copyvio detector identified two sources of potential copyright violation. One of them states that it is quoting from Wikipedia so no worries there. However, the other source is an Amazon review from October 2017: two substantial paragraphs. Is there an easier way to figure out if the Amazon review predates the Wikipedia content other than going through Diffs in the article history? Also, this article appears to have had significant material merged recently. Thanks for any help. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 15:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
For anyone not watching WT:NCORP or WP:RSN (although really we should all at least be watching the former), there's an ongoing discussion about whether Michelin stars establish notability for restaurants and whether we should adopt that standard as a formal SNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
is the tool down, I cant get it(copyvio Earwig detector)?, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
So today, I created the article Apple Watch Series 4 from a redirect. However, I am seeing the curation toolbar for this article. Is this an error? Taewangkorea ( talk) 20:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks. MyNameIsMars ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi All, Just to inform you guys that Earwing's Coyvio Detector has not been working a a few days now. I have raised phabricator:T243736]. Also see - Copyvio Detector not working @The Earwig' talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA( talk)
Do we have a tag for articles that violate WP:NSEASONS? Example 2020 Charlotte Independence season. There is little chance we can actually stop this stats spam given the propensity for football editors to scream Keep at AfD, but we can at least tag it for cleanup, but we don't seem to have a tag for this common issue that I come across all the time. Is there one that we do have that applies or could someone make one? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. So I just came across Qianjiang Century City and realized that all global rollbackers have autopatrol. For GRs that do not have local autopatrol, would it make sense for a bot to automatically unpatrol the pages so that they go through the feed like normal (not saying there is anything wrong with that page or that users creations, but in general)? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest. Sdkb ( talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add links to each entry in the New Pages feed to Special:Undelete search? They would function something like the archive search links I add to my suspicious page lists. The rationale is to make the detection of non-exact title reposts easier, which is particularly relevant for dealing with UPE. (This will, of course, be useful for admins only.)
This requires either an interface administrator to find the appropriate system message to edit, or a straight forward (hopefully!) patch to the software.
MER-C
10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Can anyone give me a link for the redirect autopatrolled page, or maybe add a link to an NPP page if it isn't already there? I can't find it, regards Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I reviewed Scary Mask and intended to refer it to AfD because the article as written does not satisfy WP:NSONG. However, I had sticky fingers and when I tried to move my content from the PROD box to the regular AfD box I accidentally submitted it to as a PROD. How can I change this to a regular AfD? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
needed at Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Series please. I moved it to draft space and left a note for the author, but it was simply moved back. I don't want to get into a move war. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Also: TCEC Season 1, TCEC Season 2, TCEC Season 3, TCEC Season 4 - duplicates of drafts so I cannot draftify them, CSD declined as not a valid critereon DannyS712 ( talk) 00:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've been noticing quite a few new articles with only a single reference showing up in the new pages feed, often meeting one SNG or another, and have even noticed a few that were created by autopatrolled users/admins. I usually tag these for 'more references', or in some cases add refs myself (if I remotely care about the topic and they are easily accessible; I'm not going to bend over backwards for the 4000th footballer article to be created this week). What is everyone else's approach to these sorts of articles? (Articles that have only a single reference but meet an Subject Notability Guideline)? If this is unnacceptable, as I believe it is (at the top level of policy it is contrary to WP:5P2, which requires "sources", plural) what should we do about admins and autopatrolled users who create articles like this? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 22:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I had been vaguely aware of new page patrolling in the past, though not of this project. I recently created an article (not my first one) and, after wondering for a few days why it was not turning up in Google searches, I found on Quora (which may not have provided the right information) that WP articles that are not patrolled are not indexed by Google (unless they are 90+ days old). What I find confusing is why there are unpatrolled pages from before 2010 – it makes me wonder how priorities are determined. My article was not tagged for any potential problem, is not an orphan, etc. I suppose I could join the project instead of complaining, but I don't feel fully confident in my understanding of the CSD and would probably be overzealous in their application.
Anyway, feel free to delete this post if it proves unhelpful (which it most likely is). Toccata quarta ( talk) 08:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. It's happened a couple of times. I've nominated a page for deletion using the NPP tool and it has placed the nomination notice on the page, notified the user, and added the entry to the AfD log, but hasn't created the AfD page. I've then had to re-write my reasoning through twinkle and re nominate before cleaning up the mess. Any help would be appreciated (Note: I let the process finish before pressing close, so it isn't me preventing it from creating the AfD page). Thanks, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 20:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate apparently just added five new languages to its service: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. [1] While I can't say that I've ever come across an article with sources in Kinyarwanda, Turkmen or Uyghur, the addition of Tatar and Odia will likely be of use. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
References
I received this massage on 13 February, unfortunately now at NewPagesFeed the blue review button is not active for me. what's the reason? Saff V. ( talk) 12:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rethinking draft space which NPRs might like to see. Regards, Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 08:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm experienced at policy but brand new at page patrol. I'm about to reject my first one. Andrew James Hartsfield Someone else tagged it as suspected paid editing which is probably true. The user name has only edited this article and appears to have been created from the article subject's name. Obviously written by a much more experienced editor. Fails notability. None of the references cover him, they are just places that mention him or have a sentence about him. The big flow chart ends up at AFD. So should I AFD this and mark it as patrolled/reviewed? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Where is the appropriate place for me to suggest that a certain page reviewer is causing issues (although acting in good faith). See /info/en/?search=User_talk:Somatochlora#Ways_to_improve_Somatochlora_meridionalis where the reviewer added tags to a page that don't make sense (including suggesting that the lead is an issue on a short stub without a lead). When I asked for clarification they seemed unable to understand my concerns and instead brought up some unrelated issues, including a suggestion that I replace a grammatically correct phrase with a grammatically incorrect one. And since then has not responded despite having made other edits. Not sure what I should be doing here but this does not seem appropriate to me. Thanks Somatochlora ( talk) 20:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:SHORTDESC, all articles should eventually have a short description template. It would be helpful to add that in the reviewing instructions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions provides instructions on how to add short descriptions. Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, one of our Admins,(sorry, experienced editor) was outed this week on an Indian website in part for their editing of this article. He was also threatened and has retired, which is unfortunate but sensible. The group behind this is having a discussion on the same page, now blacklisted, about setting up forks to tell the "truth" about the riots. It would be appreciated if any attempts to set up a nmw page on this subject was brought to either my attention, any of the other editors at
User talk:Doug Weller#ECP for Talk:North East Delhi riots? or
WP:AN. THey'd probably use the word Delhi in the title. Hopefully this won't happen, but I'm asking just in case I miss it. Thanks. Oh, almost forgot, I don't watch this page oso if anyone replies here please ping me.
Doug Weller
talk
19:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Have there been any recent changes to when articles are released for search engine indexing? I created a new article 107 days ago (November 19, 2019) and though 90 days have passed, Google hasn't picked it up for indexing, and Wikipedia's policies regarding releasing an article for indexing seem, to me, pretty opaque and hard to find. -- Canned Soul ( talk) 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there any limit per day when it comes to patrolling new pages per editor? 157.119.186.230 ( talk) 10:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a request to have the article title Applause Entertainment unprotected so the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited can be moved there however after looking at the article I felt the article wouldn't have passed WP:NPR and it seems to have skipped WP:NPR according to the logs. I placed the article Applause Entertainment Private Limited back into the NPR queue for a second opinion. Just wanted to give a heads up on what I did. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 08:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
What do reviewers think about Arbcom clerks being granted auto patrolled so that case pages don’t need to be patrolled? Helpful? Not helpful? Thanks. Levivich dubious – discuss 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Reviewers may want to have a look at a recent Headbomb/ SD0001 production: a script to automatically highlight various levels of unreliable sources. Very useful for getting a single glance impression of the quality of a reference section. It doesn't find all fluff, but it finds notorious fluff, which is already a big timesaver :) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly just fed up with stuff like this: 2020 Fed Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B (Tallinn). Honestly. How the hell are we supposed to keep up with the flood of undersourced blatant fails of WP:NOTSTATS? I have no idea why people keep flooding the wiki with this useless garbage. There are plenty of sports statistics pages that people can go to for this sort of info, why should we be a web host for it? It's such a huge sink on editor and reviewer time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Such guidelines only show whether a player is likely to meet GNG, not exempt him/her of the guideline. However, this seems to have been forgotten as editors counter claims that a player doesn't meet GNG despite meeting NFOOTY with the argument that NFOOTY is sufficient. We can't do much about the problem, except for praying the Serenity Prayer and focussing our attention elsewhere. -- MrClog ( talk) 19:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Mildly promotional but notable topics are the current bane of NPP, and have been for a long time. We currently lack good tools to deal with them. I've thought for a while that suggesting a policy change to the COI guideline that supports stubifying new promo articles on notable topics would be a good idea.
Please see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/COISTUBIFY, where I have a bunch more explanation of why I think this is needed and a draft of the proposed section to be added to the COI guideline. Can I please ask that people provide feedback if they have any, good or bad! Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO stubifying would be tougher / more complicated than it sounds.Maybe a real example of a mildly-promotional but notable one would be good for the discussion. North8000 ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The sidebar when I was looking through pages has disappeared, how do I get it back? Govvy ( talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
O, thought you guys needed help, don't know why you temp'ed it. Govvy ( talk) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I’ve just learned there is such a thing as a redirect class rating at AfC. If a new article has already been rated as redirect class should I go ahead and review it? Is there any point? Thanks. Mccapra ( talk) 10:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
A recent RfC on the reliability of the
Times of India had an outcome of between no consensus and generally unreliable
(
RSP entry). It is a source that is used quite a bit for Indian subjects, particularly for films and actors. I'm generally not in favor of hunting down and purging old articles about non-controversial subjects when notability or source-reliability standards change, but new page reviewers should be aware going forward that we can be stricter about articles supported by trivial coverage in the ToI. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I started here a few weeks ago after you recruited my on my talk page and have done a little over a hundred. These are a lot of work to do well, you folks that are near-keeping up with the firehose of new articles definitely deserve some type of award! And the knowledge needed to do it well is even greater than the rquirements that you put out. Beyond a super-fluent knowledge of wp:not and wp:notability you really need to also be very fluent on all of the SNG's just to get started. And despite y'all reviewing it looks like about 600 articles per day the chart says that we're falling behind.
I keep running across something that is very time consuming and have been thinking that "why should the NPP folks need to be doing that?" The typical might be an example of an artist/song/movie/person/business in another country where where is zero indication of establishing notability in the article. Nothing specific relating to a a SNG, and no suitable wp:gng coverage in the sources. So for a couple that I sent to AFD, the folks there starting doing research on coverage including translating from other languages and determined / decided that suitable coverage exists. So now I'm thinking I shouldn't have sent those there and that NPP has the responsibility to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist? Either way (NPP or AFD folks) it seems that if there is nothing notability related in the article/sourcing, the work burden is on the NPP/AFD folks to do the research to establish that suitable coverage does not exist. Why can't it be the editor's responsibility to put the sources etc. in to establish notability rather than on an overloaded NPP/AFD person to do the research to basically "prove a negative" for a topic when they don't? Couldn't the process be to drop those and let them be recreated when sources are found? This seems to be more of a "standard practice" question at npp/afd rather than a policy question. North8000 ( talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've recently found the copyvio tools to be unreliable and broken... Today I keep getting 502 Bad gateway from Earwig-derived tools. I also can't open Earwig's tool directly, so there seems to be an issue with it in general. What's going on? Anyone have a clue? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
getting the above response again only did 2 reviews today-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
wondering if there is alternate copyvio detector or method to check article (reviewed only 2 redirect) …..was able to get the detector to run after 1/2 hour trying( now 4 reviews out of usual 6)?
I sent the creator of a page a message which included a Google Scholar search result. It displayed correctly on the article talk-page, but as a large red error message on his talk. That seems to be because {{ Bq}} can't handle an equals sign. Could we perhaps either fix the template, or switch to a simpler message that doesn't use it? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty new at this (~130 reviews) but an experienced editor. I keep running into a similar situation (maybe 10 times) where a topic pretty clearly doesn't pass Wp:GNG nor any SNG. Then when I AFD it, someone says that there is some accepted practice for keeping which is not in any of the guidelines. A recent example of this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedchha railway station.
My ONLY concern is trying to do the job properly. I'm starting to read these as a hint that maybe I shouldn't have taken it to AFD. Any advice on this? Are there really a lot of unwritten standard practices in play that exempt some topics / articles from GNG/SNG's? If so, is there a faster way to learn the unwritten rules than just trying to glean the legit ones from all of the "keep" arguments at AFD? Or is it common for the reviewer to just follow guidelines and policies when AFD'ing, and then let the community at AFD decide to apply the unwritten exceptions. Or should I just stick to topics where I know that there are no unwritten rules and leave the others for more experienced rviewers. ? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD" applies. MrClog ( talk) 13:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I feel somewhat silly asking this, as I suspect there is something right in front of me that I am missing... but I cannot see the page curation tool. I have confirmed I have the
new page review right, when I look at the new pages feed I see a "review" button... but after hitting that review button...nothing. In the left toolbar (under tools) "curate this article" does not appear. Suggestions....? Thank you, --
Goldsztajn (
talk)
15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall reviewing any prior article that has been 'deleted priorly'...except this one. Due to the current pandemic and the need for information, after having looked at the article, I have reviewed it, should anyone be in disagreement, can give a good reason why repurposed medication should not have its own article, and can speak to the specific points raised (each individual medications pros and cons then please un-review, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that I'm stuck with a fundamentally wrong understanding of the notability requirements for songs ( WP:NSONG) and albums ( WP:NALBUM). Since in frequency as newly created articles these are second only to Indian entrepreneurs, I'm requesting some feedback here.
By my understanding, none of the criteria given at these notability guidelines constitutes a pass - they merely are indicators that it might be worth someone's while to go looking for the multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label
. If those can be shown, then notability is demonstrated. If you can't find them, then sufficient notability is lacking (and we are looking at a redirect in most cases). Right or wrong?
This is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song)), where people are again busy claiming that "it passes WP:NSONG #X" and that this shows notability. Not a rare occurrence, but this time it's not just coming from those knwon to be constitutionally unable to vote anything but "Keep" but also from some who I suspect should have some understanding of what the guidelines mean. So some input on interpretation would be good. I don't enjoy the battles over song notability at the best of times, and could do without charging in with faulty preconceptions. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way to see who reviewed a page? — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 13:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I know that the instructions already talk about being careful with top level tags. I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP and thought I might make an observation on a communication dichotomy. Let's say that an article passes NPP, but like an average newer article has no serious problems but is still weak / needing work in numerous areas. To the NPP, clicking on a tag in curation might be seen as saying "here's some advice on what to work on". To an editor, a top level tag is usually seen a scarlet letter that says "there is something seriously wrong with your article." There are obviously solutions (such as just leaving reviewer notes) but I just thought it might be helpful to note this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP. Thanks for the guidance above that WP:AFDCO is a good guide to where common practice overrides the notability guidlines.
Recently I AFD'd Arpine which is a given name / first name ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpine). It pretty clearly didn't pass WP:GNG, and there is no applicable SNG. There is also no mention of first/given names at WP:AFDCO. (Also, it seems borderline on wp:not a dictionary). The result at AFD was that it's considered common practice for articles on first names/given names to bypass wp:notability requirements. I was wondering if there is a second list beyond WP:AFDCO where it's common practice to bypass wp:notability requirements? I know Wikipedia well enough that fuzzy situations are the norm; I'm more concerned that I'm doing the job properly. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
What's with the page curation tool using the following language?
I would use the word "start" instead of "prepend". I have never seen the word "prepend" before. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Has the following article been patrolled/reviewed and indexed?
The article was created on January 27. I searched the New pages feed ( Special:NewPagesFeed) with the filter set to that date, state reviewed/unreviewed, type all others and name space Article, and it’s not there. Why? I also checked the reviewed and patrolled logs on the history of that article. Nothing. But those logs seem to be empty for all articles. Why?
This shouldn’t be so hard. What am I missing?
— В²C ☎ 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
In a discussion (intentionally not linked) about a particular NPP, the idea of where and how to best communicate feedback has arisen. Through the curation toolbar, on an unnreviewed article, we currently have two options. Option 1 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk page while placing a tag. Option 2 is to leave a message for the page's creator on their user talk and leave a message on the article's talk page. Francis Schonken in that discussion raised the reasonable point that creating multiple discussions on the same topic is normally a bad practice. Given that we're not likely to be able to change the programming of the curation toolbar anytime soon, are there any thoughts about how we can best communicate? Especially in cases where there might be content related comments (e.g. suggestions about sourcing)? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Advice appreciated here please: a couple of times while reviewing I’ve found a page that I want to send straight to AfD. If I use the curation toolbar it’s easy but doesn’t seem to add deletion discussions. If I use twinkle it’s easy to add the deletion discussions but I presume there’s then no traceable link between the review process and the AfD. What is best to do? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay so I'm a bit out of my element here 'cause NPP ain't my bag, but there are several issues here. To start, "Patrol" is different from "Page curation": the former is part of mediawiki core, the latter is part of the PageTriage extension. I don't know exactly how the various tools work, but AFAICT:
The different behavior makes sense to me: patrol is the OG, is its own thing, and is part of the main software. Page curation is an extension, a special add-on that builds a new system on top of what already existed, so it tries to play nice and hooks into patrol as best it can. The patrol function has no real knowledge of page curation's existence I don't think. This means that a patrolled page can subsequently be curated, but a curated page is, by default, already patrolled.
As far as Twinkle is concerned:
rcid
needed to patrol the page. This is bad.
I think that roughly answers/addresses most of the above? If folks want a change to how CSD/XfD/PROD/tag handles patrolling, holla back. I can probably handle the Twinkle side of things in between SAHP and existential dread, but I think my main question for y'all would be, if Twinkle eventually supported both patrolling and curation, how should Twinkle handle a page? If I didn't confuse myself, the options are 1) patrol (patrol log, no curation log); 2) curate (patrol log and curation log); or 3) patrol then curation (patrol log and curation log). It's not clear to me that 2 and 3 are notably different, except that in case 3 the patrol log entry will have the PageTriage tag whereas in case 2 it won't.
On a more personal note, this whole area is fakakta and I have no idea how any of you make heads or tails of any of it! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 02:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
patroldisabled: Recent changes patrol disabled
. Looking
directly into the database, the page does exist in the recentchanges table with rc_type = 1 (new page) and rc_patrolled = 0 (unpatrolled), which suggests it should be patrollable. EDIT: trying to patrol it using the API with revid gave that error, but using rcid instead (taken from the db query result) succeeded.By means of belated update, I've proposed some changes to Twinkle, basically converting everything (CSD/XfD/PROD/tag) to use the triage action instead of the patrol action, with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use. Should cover all the bases here? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
page.patrol()
will be page.triage()
. There should be no visible changes except that pages will be curated/triaged/reviewed/whatever-verb-of-choiced instead of patrolled, thus removed from NewPagesFeed and NewPages. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
with CSD and PROD off by default and discouraged from use(which I assumed was a recommendation to reviewers after this proposed fix, not a complete deprecation but rather using a revamped CSD/PROD functionality in triage), I was wondering if there would be an alternative means (if necessary) to continue logging. If it's merely a code change, and it is not recommended that we do not use Twinkle, there's no cause for concern. ComplexRational ( talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The changes to Twinkle have now been implemented. Let me know if something broke! ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 17:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This unreviewed page by @ Noswall59: is a list of lists, and none of the lists on this page have been reviewed either. I'd review them, but I'm really not very sure what to make of these pages. It seems like information that's more appropriate for Wikidata than Wikipedia. What do more experienced patrollers suggest doing with these lists? Mcampany ( talk) 00:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)