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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Hello NPP, I attempted to nominate XLAB for deletion using the Curation Toolbar. However, I'm not sure it "stuck." The original deletion template on the page pointed to a red-linked "this article's entry." I clicked on this to create the page but I don't see XLAB in the 6 May AfD list. Just checking to see if I made a mistake with the page curation toolbar. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(I'm no js guru, but I think the following is the info you need. If not let me know. I'm using Firefox 76.0 (64 bit) on a MacBook Pro):
Long list of errors
|
---|
|
Atsme Talk 📧 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:Holy mackeral - tripled it!! Atsme Talk 📧 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I created an article Kere Basadi 2 months back. It hasn't been reviewed yet. Could you please confirm where to submit this article for review?
- Thanks Pratyk321 ( talk · contribs)
I'm trying to review Seo Woo-jin, but I'm stuck figuring out notability because every source is a foreign language source. Are foreign language sources allowed on Wikipedia, and if they are, is it considered acceptable for new articles (or, I guess, any article) to rely entirely on them? ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 03:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Should we try to recruit more reviewers? The backlog is pushing up towards 10k. Mccapra ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Couple thoughts. I guess that there are about 700 new pages per day to review. And there are 41 reviewers who average at least 2 reviews per day. and about 700 current (non-admin) reviewers who don't. Maybe we could get more numbers done by increasing the "41".
Also some specialists on sports might help. It seems like 1/2 of everyone on the planet who ever played a game meets the SNG :-) and numerically Wikipedia is becoming a directory of obscure athletes so maybe some people who know enough to quickly assess whether a sports player is in the "1/2" could get a lot of articles done. Or maybe we have that already.
Finally, as an experienced editor (51,000 manual edits over 11 years) who is new to NPP, I can say that it's really a big leap to get fluent at this. Rather than needing to know "almost as much as an administrator" , fluency here requires knowing much more than a typical admin. Besides core policies and guidelines, 100% knowledge or most or all of the SNG's is just a start. Then you need to learn in what areas accepted practices (including those at AFD) override WP:notability. From reading this column, it sounds like I need to find out what Twinkle is and how to use it because the "proper" curation tools don't work for AFD's? Point being, maybe assisting folks in becoming fluent reviewers could get a lot more reviews done.
Sometimes observations by the new dummy guy (me) might be helpful. Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 20:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
North8000, WP:Twinkle is pretty easy to install, and is quite frankly a godsend not just for NPP but for a whole litany of maintenance admin-adjacent tasks signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Rosguill: Thanks; I'll go there and learn/use. North8000 ( talk) 10:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
While consulting some Wikipedia pages yesterday, I noticed that WP:NPPDRAFT's advice was significantly different from the text at WP:DRAFTIFY, which covers essentially the same topic. As these are both formally supplement pages, I went ahead and copied the information from DRAFTIFY over into NPPDRAFT, as it more closely reflects the broader Wikipedia attitude toward when to move articles to draftspace. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Could someone a bit more techy than me please look at this page? I want to move it to draft because it is likely that the topic is notable, but the article is poorly written and does not have RIS. The move to draft is not accepted for some reason. There isn’t a draft page of the same name that I can see so there may be some other technical issue with the page. Many thanks Mccapra ( talk) 06:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
See WP:NPPSORT ( User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting) - a new bot-generated report that sorts unreviewed articles by topics. These topics are predicted by ORES machine learning software. Will be updated at UTC noon, everyday. This is similar to WP:AFCSORT for AfC drafts.
Hope this helps in reducing the 10k NPP backlog.
Cheers, SD0001 ( talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear fellow NPP members, Over the past academic year I have been working with students and law faculty to create articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. There is an explanation of the rationale and pedagogy behind this project on the front of my user page. The key point is that non-disruptive contributions were my priority.
When the project started I took feedback from WikiProject Law based on a few early articles. They pointed out the need to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM. I worked with the student editors to strike a balance between this guidance and the advice from my law faculty colleagues that it is often important to preserve and quote the exact language used in a decision.
In this respect, one thing I have noticed is that Earwig is giving a false positive on some of the articles due to the presence of direct quotes from the case decision. The case decisions are from the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) and its usuage rules for Irish decisions follows the Courts Service of Ireland regulations. Its rules allow for re-use and quoting as long as citations are provided. Earwig is also flagging common legal phrases and proper nouns. We are checking every article with Earwig to make sure that any flags it puts up relate to material that is properly quoted and cited or refer to common legal phrases and proper nouns. If anyone has concerns about content please let me know. Alternatively, I will have all the articles on my watchlist so I can respond to concerns on individual article talk pages. I'm letting WT:CP know about the articles too.
I will be moving articles to mainspace starting later today and tomorrow, and over the course of May. The law faculty and I are working through them in chunks to do the Earwig checks, formatting, and any final tidying.
AugusteBlanqui (
talk)
10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ AugusteBlanqui: I sort of alternate, looking for "easier" (= compliant and well written) articles in newer feeds and then taking on the tougher older open ones. I ran across some of the articles that you noted while doing the former. What a great contribution to Wikipedia! Well written articles, on encyclopedic topics that need coverage in Wikipedia. My only "yellow alert" during reviewing was that they looked TOO well written and so I did a lot a checking for copied text.......in essence that the quotes from sources were identified as quotes. And they also looked good in that respect. Please pass along big "thumbs up" to everyone involved on this great contribution to Wikipedia. Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 23:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The new page Socionym is written as a dictionary entry, and probably has no hope of being more than that. What should one do with such a thing? -- JBL ( talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I see we've finally cross the dreaded frontier into the teens. Has this ever happened before? Mccapra ( talk) 13:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Folks, What does it mean on the NPP dialog when it says Attack in the Possible issues field. It on Rule 3 adviser. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I was at first wondering if Semiconductor saturable-absorber mirror was copied from [1]. But it turns out to be the other way around, because that page was split from Fiber laser. The book doesn't attribute Wikipedia. Is there a place to report these kinds of things? Sam-2727 ( talk) 03:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there anywhere that coverse the computer operational meanings of "patrol" vs. "curation", and "triage"? I recently got chasticized by somebody saying that I should have used "pagetriage" instead or article curation. North8000 ( talk) 11:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a discrepancy between
Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Deletion and
WP:NPPLOG. Whereas the former tells reviewers do not mark the page as reviewed
when tagging pages for deletion, the latter asks reviewers to mark as patrolled Any page that is tagged for speedy deletion, proposed for deletion, or nominated for discussion
. My gut feeling is that the former makes more sense, but I want to confirm here before making any changes. Thanks. --
Dps04 (
talk)
09:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t realise till just now, but learned here that mainspace articles automatically get picked up for indexing after 90 days. Aside from articles where a redirect is removed, we have articles in the NPP queue back to 130 days ago. If we don’t catch up to less than 90 days, patrolling isn’t stopping bad articles being indexed. Maybe we need more people working the back of the queue? Mccapra ( talk) 21:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the recommended way to handle severely flawed articles that have been created in the mainspace at same time a draft article exists? For example, Berkeley SkyDeck and Draft:Berkeley SkyDeck. If a draft didn't exist I would probably draftify the article but that is clearly not an option here. Is there some kind of speedy criteria in this situation or how should this be handled? Loksmythe ( talk) 01:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This article shouldn't belong to the encyclopedia, but wouldn't it be a stretch to call this an A1? The context is hard to ascertain, but it is certainly not a very short article, and although it's pretty much nonsense in the ordinary sense of the word, it isnt really total nonsense or a word salad under the strict definitions of "nonsense" in Wikipedia, as some of the sentences are understandaable with much difficulty. (I thought of the possibility of copyright violation, but then it seems not the entire thing is copied, so G12, which requires the entire article (or basically the entire article) to be copied, doesn't quite apply either). And the common deletion criteria (e.g. A7, G11) doesn't really fit here. It seems prod is the only correct option? -- Dps04 ( talk) 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, curation messages about articles created by Wiki Education student editors are sometimes sent to the wrong editor, because of a technical issue involving who initially created the student sandbox page. Can the page curation process or script send the {{ Taggednote-NPF}} or other curation message to the Talk page of the student editor who actually created all of the article content in their sandbox, rather than to the Wiki Education content expert assigned to helping the student and who created a rump sandbox on their behalf with with a 33-byte template?
Wiki Education supports and collaborates with university classes whose students have assignments from their professor to write or modify articles for Wikipedia. These classes are monitored and assisted by Wikipedia editors associated with WMF known as "content experts", who (among other things) guide and mentor these new student editors in getting on board as Wikipedia editors. One standard procedure is for the content expert to create a rump sandbox in the student editors user space, consisting of nothing but {{
dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}
to get them started; for example,
here. (This was formerly
User:Iaguayo/sandbox, and then was expanded by student editor
Iaguayo (
talk ·
contribs) until it became
this 15kb article.)
Then, a page curation volunteer like User:North8000 comes along and uses the page creation script in the context of curating Geri Montano, and the tool sends the {{ Taggednote-NPF}} message to the Talk page of the creator of the page. Only under current circumstances, the message goes to the Wiki Ed content expert who created the 33-byte sandbox, not to the student who developed the 15kb article, as in this NPF message added to the Talk page of Wiki Education content expert User:Shalor (Wiki Ed).
Creation of a rump sandbox by a Wiki Ed/WMF content expert on behalf of a student editor is a normal procedure. (In this case, the student eventually moved their sandbox to main space after they were ready with it.) Given that the Wiki Ed content expert is not the one really responsible for the creation of the article, but only the initial sandbox, is there some way that the page curation process can assign the NPF note (or other page curation message) to the student editor instead?
I'm not too familiar with tags, but one thing that occurs to me, is that maybe it could be done via an edit summary tag. Upon sandbox creation via {{ dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}, a tag could be added to the edit summary naming the student editor in the tag as a tag parameter value. If that is possible, then the curation process could detect that value in the initial edit and act accordingly. If it's not, then alternatively, the Wiki Ed procedure that creates the sandbox in the first place and which currently adds an edit summary like, "Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}' " could be modified, either automatically or by conventional manual procedure, to instead add an edit summary like, "Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}' on behalf of user=[[User:Example]] ". The page curation process or script would then pick up the user from the summary, and use it to determine who to send the curation message to. Mathglot ( talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Given that the Wiki Ed content expert is not the one really responsible for the creation of the article, but only the initial sandbox.... Insofar as none of these students would be editing were it not for an assignment, and, in my experience, student editors are generally intimidated and overwhelmed by any message to their talk page, then should not the Wiki Ed content expert and the instructor of the course ideally take responsibility for whatever ends up published here? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that this particular article is a good general example of the topics being discussed, but not for the mechanics involved. Because.... I used the curation tool to tag the article for notability and it appears that no messages went to any user pages. Then I edited the talk page of the article and put that explanation and info in there. In this case I had two intended recipients. One might be anybody who is interested in the article to look for and add WP:GNG type sources, or at least feel that they were offered a chance and time to do so VS. a fast trip to AFD. Second, since I intended to leave it marked as un-reviewed (due to being close to the line on wp:notability) to get a second reviewer rather than taking it to AFD, I thought that my notes on the digging I did might be helpful to a second reviewer. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone getting Earwig’s copyvio detector to load properly at the moment? It keeps timing out for me. Mccapra ( talk) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So, I have been a bit bolder in my reviews recently and ran into a single-source article (or two) that seems to meet SNG per the source which gives the wrong name. It seems I will have more questions for NPPR after I figure out the rest of it. So, in order not to split the discussion, I was wondering if interested editors could visit the discussion linked in the header, and chime in with respect to how to do NPPing in these cases. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Some new page reviewers may be interested in this village pump discussion. — Paleo Neonate – 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is mostly about me learning how to handle borderline ones. LutosAir_Quintet has been tagged for notability since early April. It doesn't have and I can't find any in-depth independent coverage of them. Nor anything that makes them clearly meet a SNG criteria. Yet they appear to be very prominent and active, and there is a lot of coverage with short mentions of them. The have an article in the Polish Wikipedia, their home country. To me, between a preponderance of all of the above, plus guessing that this would almost certainly kept if taken to AFD, I would pass this one. Could an experienced reviewer critique me on this? Thanks North8000 ( talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: Thanks! That is very helpful! One question When you said "...what would happen at AfD is not part of our evaluation matrix" is using Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes as a guide sort of an exception to that? Before when I took some to AFD that clearly failed wp:GNG and SNG the dialog there implied that my nomination was in error because "xxxxx type articles are always kept". For example, a small train station on a major rail line. I never tried it with a town, but a very tiny town in India would be another example. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Quote from OUTCOMES
|
---|
This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view. As guidelines and actual practice change, this page should be updated to reflect current outcomes. Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. This page simply attempts to summarize Wikipedia's common daily practice with respect to deletion debates. If you feel that an outcome common to articles like the one you are discussing does not apply, then give a common-sense or guidelines-based reason why it shouldn't apply. Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles". |
Thanks! I don't know whether to take this any further, I don't want to be asking for a tidy world that doesn't exit, just trying to avoid doing anything that would be considered to be a mistake by NPP norms. When there is a pretty strong and direct conflict between between Outcomes and wp:GNG/SNG's, is going either way a mistake?:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities.and NGEO says
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.I don't see a mismatch between OUTCOMES and NGEO. So that Indian village is likely notable and can safely be marked reviewed. In terms of #2 there is no actual guideline just an essay. OUTCOMES says
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD.That has also been my experience. So do you think that this is an exception to that? Some reason it's different enough that it would get a different result? If yes, make your case. If no then mark it reviewed. If the answer is no but it bothers you try and start a discussion - though in the case of transportation I don't see that changing just given the number of editors we have who like our current standards. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I made a suggestion at ANI that was inspired by a GF user who creates lots of stubs and stubees. Most AfC/NPP editors are aware of the problem and that we are left with lots of work (and a backlog) because we have to expand and source those submissions before they will even meet the basic requirements of being an article stub. In the interim, the creator is credited for creating an article while we spend hours making it one as our backlog grows. I'm of the mind that we may be able to convince the WMF to automate the process by modifying how new articles are accepted upon submission (before they are actually created in mainspace), be it through AfC, draft space, or first created directly in mainspace. Sulferboy offered to help me put a proposal together so I'm pinging him now.
I was thinking an instruction could be coded to prevent article creation if the submission is:
The program would return an error message with instructions for what needs to be fixed in order for the article to be published - not unlike submitting a form and having it rejected because you forgot to add a phone number, or the email address wasn't valid. Perhaps JS or Lua could accomplish this task? I'm pinging 2 programmers who have always been able to answer my crazy questions, RexxS, Wbm1058 and DannyS712, just to make sure that what I'm proposing is doable before we add it to our wishlist for WMF. I'm thinking that such a process will be a welcome addition because it will help eliminate the junk stubees and contribute to the reduction of the backlogs at AfC, NPP, and AfD. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Atsme Talk 📧 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Minimum word limits are screened by Special:ShortPages. There are legitimate short pages such as Wiktionary redirects and set indexes that need {{ subst:Long comment}}-tagged to whitelist them.
The spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page. A similar control mechanism could be used to stop misspellings but I think the misspelling list for such blacklisting would need to be maintained by administrators. Too many editors are obsessive about tagging things which are borderline legitimate alternative spellings as flat-out misspellings. – wbm1058 ( talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Responding to one note above, I don't know how it rolls at AFC, but at NPP and AFD, if reviewer has to prove a negative that suitable sources don't exist for wp:notability, that a tiny stub does consume a lot of time. IMO that's why I think it should be the editor's responsibility to the basis for wp:notability IN THE ARTICLE including sources if the basis is wp:gng. And the reviewer would review only the provided sources. North8000 ( talk) 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the page curation's AfD function broken? I tried to AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Are_Blytt&type=revision&diff=961115804&oldid=955312103&diffmode=source but no AfD page was created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are Blytt. This is the second time this has happened, I also had problems with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic scandal, I ended up redoing that one with Twinkle. Vexations ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I keep on getting this. [3]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 11:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, it appears that User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting has not updated since 3 June. Is this intentional or is something off with the bot? I've found the tool very useful for finding articles to review. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we're solidly over 10,000 backlog. Elsewhere it's been written that the way that Wikipedia gets so much volunteer help is a combination that they enjoy it and of fulfilling a mission. I guess we get about 700 articles per day. Not counting admins I think that there are about 700 with the reviewing tool. Yet there only about 66 reviewers who average at least one article per day and only 40 who average 2 articles per day. So IMO what's needed is to help people become regular reviewers. IMO this is because it is so difficult to get fluent / comfortable / knowledgeable at this. In real life / business I'm a good trainer and writer of "dummies guide to....." because I have good empathy/understanding for the people who don't know the topic and what they need. Let's say that someone is an experienced editor, and is familiar with wp:gng, the SNG's and wp:not. They still have these big hurdles to learn:
If anybody ever wanted to write more guidance to help in these areas I'd be happy to help. As a recent newbie here I still have the much needed "dummy" qualification. :-) North8000 ( talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In this section my focus was on an easy way to get more reviewers active. North8000 ( talk) 17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO the scope and the numbers points to a few obvious things:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, and I should preface this by saying that I don't understand coding at all, but it appears that PageTriage is flagging articles that use {{ Sfn}} style-citation as having no citations. Is this something that could be fixed easily? No big deal if not. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks. Who is Gen'd up on predatory journals. What is the procedure regarding them. I have ATPase Domain 3B which is showing up two pink references, indicating they are predatory. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so a NPP editor tagged an article with a refimprove tag. I assume I was alerted because I created the page. So far so good.
I did not receive a talk page message (as the documentation seems to indicate), only the alert notification. So, does this mean we can send alerts to other users? How does this alerting work? CapnZapp ( talk) 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
These two terms appear to be used interchangeably. Is there a distinction that I am missing, or do they mean the same thing in this context? -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Koushik Pain (currently blocked) created a series of articles about Ashoka Chakra awardees, most of them are cases of blatant copyvio (mostly copy-paste from external sources). I have already reported some of the articles and they are deleted. There are still a lot of articles.
I wrote a user-space essay with some thoughts about the role that NPP plays in reproducing Wikipedia's systemic bias, User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist. The title is intentionally provocative, and I'd appreciate people's thoughts on the essay. I think that many new page reviewers already informally practice some of the behaviors that I suggest adopting in the essay, but I'm wondering what people think about putting them into practice on a broader scale. Inasmuch as many of us are keenly aware of the problems of systemic bias on Wikipedia, it may do well to formally address the issue as part of our NPP onboarding process alongside tutorials other core components of new page reviewing. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I probably speak for a lot of new page patrollers in saying that I just attempt to do the job properly, and to figure out exactly what "properly" is. And this includes borderline AFD decisions.North8000 ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
There's one situation where I think that some systemic bias against non-English topics is unavoidable. This is where the editor never bothered to put in wp:notability-related sources, and the NPP patrol is supposedly expected to search the world, and review the sources that they find to prove that wp:notability ones don't exist before AFD'ing it. For a NPP person to do this for the world of non-English sources is unrealistic to put it mildly. Something that the millions of editors don't have the person-hours to do you can't expect the 70 NPP people who do 99% of the reviews of the 700 articles per day that they generate.North8000 ( talk) 19:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
At AFD's I never take on the role as an advocate for deletion. If people make a faulty argument that I screwed up, I might cite the policy in response. In fact, a common phenomena is that the AFD triggers a massive flurry of work adding sources and content and I end up reversing my stance to "keep". North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"extended benefit of the doubt"is in fact an admission that you think Wikipedia's mission is forward a political agenda and that you, who claim to be an admin, are fine overlooking the rules when it suits that political preference. This sort of affirmative action take on WP:N only creates derision, as we assume that articles on some subjects are just there to placate the chattering class, not that those articles should exist on merit. It used to be, we established community rules and then we stuck to them, without regard to race, class, sex, etc. and efforts to
"enforce a bureaucracy"were the application of those community standards. What you stupidly encourage is the worst sort of favoritism to replace objectivity. I don't think you ought to have a mop if you cannot agree to stick to community consensus. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
the chattering class. To be quite honest, the set of experiences that immediately precipitated this essay was seeing a slew of submissions of films from regional Indian cinema that did meet notability guidelines, but which had been previously deleted following PRODs or AfDs on less well-written versions of the article by different editors. These articles, by our own guidelines, should not have been deleted in the first place, but we were unable to recognize that at the time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It would seem to me that a routine of "how to build a new article" should include looking for and including wp:notability-related sourcing. How is that radical? If the responsibility of new article creation is limited to generating titles and then it is the responsibility of NPP to do a world-wide source search and confirm lack of suitable sources, then wikipedia needs only about 70 title generators and a million source researchers and curators instead of the current opposite. :-) North8000 ( talk) 21:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Sad news for all of us at NPP. The WikiEd foundation formally announced a reduction in scope in how WikiEd will be supporting students for the coming year at the education noticeboard. As student editors come into contact with NPP regularly and because they can be a big time sink I"m going to quote an excerpt at length:
What does this mean for our programs on English Wikipedia? We will continue to run our Student Program, where students edit Wikipedia as a class assignment, and our Scholars & Scientists Program, where we train subject matter experts to edit, just with fewer numbers than before. In particular, with our Student Program, we have announced a stricter application process to participate in the fall 2020 term. We will be accepting some courses per normal, and some under the condition that student work stays in sandboxes until our staff has a chance to review the student work, in an effort to avoid putting additional burden on the volunteer editing community. As always, if you see any problematic editing from student editors in our program (they'll have a Wiki Education banner on their user page that links to their course), please flag it here on the Education Noticeboard or ping User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Our intention with this plan is to balance providing good support to participants without causing some courses to teach without our support. We hope this will result in good quality content on Wikipedia with minimal disruption to volunteer efforts.
If you find courses that are editing without WikiEd support and they are causing issues WP:ENB continues to be a place to note it. Obviously this page can also be used if discussion is needed about an appropriate NPP response to student editors as well. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Could I ask for help with the talk page of this article please? The original article was redirected to Kanafeh a while ago, along with its talk page. I think the redirect on the article was reverted recently and it was recreated. However the talk page still redirects to the talk page of Kanafeh. I’ve had a look at this but I’m afraid if I try to revert the redirect so there’s a proper talk page at Kadaif I’ll end up making a gigantic mess and annoying everyone. Could someone with decent hand+eye coordination fix it so Kanafeh keeps its talk page and Kadaif gets one back? Many thanks. Mccapra ( talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a variety of proposals around changing PROD that New Page Patrollers might be interested in participating in. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently started looking at footy articles, and came across a batch of new ones from a prolific creator with more than a few articles still in the queue which don't seem to meet NFOOTY, but some of the similar articles from them have already been marked as reviewed.
I would like to know what, if anything, I am missing in my reading of NFOOTY. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Could some other reviewers please take a look at a run of articles about schools in Ethiopia here. I think they’re a bit unusual from a notability point of view. The schools seem like run of the mill non notable schools but unusually they have been studied as part of a piece of research into sanitation. My view is that despite coverage in these RIS they’re not notable, but as I’ve never come across a similar case I’d welcome others’ views. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
When going through new page review I pick and choose what to tag, but what am I suppose to do when another editor keeps removing a template like ref-improve, like on this article? Govvy ( talk) 13:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In light of this case, I'd like to propose again that a bot automatically un-patrol pages creating by global rollbackers that are not locally autopatrolled -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. The real fix is that the right should no be included with global rollbacker but also do here per Barkeep. North8000 ( talk) 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC);
BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72 -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to request this, but I was wondering if a NPP member could take a look at this article. It appears to be a first effort created by a new account directly in the article mainspace. The creator's username also might indicate a case of WP:AUTO and WP:COISELF. The article has tons of problems such as incorrect formatting and syntax, promotional tone, possible image copyright issues, non-free content issues, embedded external links, but many of those are things that can be cleaned up without too much difficulty. The main concern, however, has to do with WP:BIO and whether the subject is Wikipedia notable. As stated above, the article never went through AfC so it never really got assessed for notability. It's template to just WP:DRAFTIFY this and give the creator suggestions on how to improve things ( H:YFA, WP:REFB, etc.), and then advise them to submit it to AfC when they think it's ready, but if NPP feels the article is viable there's probably no need for any of that. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know what is going on with the lagging numbers and missing sections in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers report? No big deal, but I like to look at that report to see how much work everyone is doing. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working the oldest end of the que and bit the bullet and took a sports article that looked like it should go to AFD. :-) It was about the future 20/21 season of a sports team. 2020-21 Queen of the South F.C. season. Currently there is no content about the subject of the article and no references about the subject of the article. It provides an outline/ framework for a future article when the subject occurs. The few sentences of content and all of the references are about previous seasons. It is probable that if/when the season occurs, the article would be a "keep", but right now none of that exists.
I AFD'd it and it's coming back as an overwhelming "keep". Is there a common practice at NPP on what to do with articles that are likely to have suitable sources in the future but not now?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The new page patroller and autopatrolled editor Isingness has been blocked for UPE spamming (credit to GSS). I've listed their patrols here: Special:Permanentlink/969319005. MER-C 18:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
44k edits in three months!? So multiple people working from that account simultaneously like scope says. Probably a nightmare to implement but zoom logs me out of one device if I login to the same account on another device. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to generate a listing for TheImaCow. It is here: Special:Permanentlink/969583341#Pages moved from draft to main (TheImaCow). MER-C 09:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
quarry:query/36304 searches through the logs of all of the pages patrolled by Isingness that still exist, and sorts them into those still in the page curation system (ones that should just be unreviewed) and those no longer in the system (ones that need to be re-enqueued). Currently it shows 143 to re-enqueue and 18 to unreview. I'd like to, via script, re-enqueue and unreview all of the pages accordingly, with a 3 second delay between each action per the rate limit. I haven't written the full code yet, but the framework for the delay is written if anyone wants to see it. Since there isn't a full process to go by, I suggest that reviewers who support or oppose this mass action (on a one-time basis) comment below. I won't actually do it until there is at least some support. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Occasionally while I’m logged in I go to an article and find that the curation toolbar doesn’t appear on my screen. Usually if I refresh the page, it appears. However when I go to Marcos jewels it just won’t appear at all. Does it show for anyone else with that article? Is there something I can do to make it appear? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 06:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks Ive had this problem for a couple of day on this specific article but it still comes up twice a day on SDZerobot as unreviewed. I’ll report it as you suggest. Mccapra ( talk) 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I received the notice "The page
Thailand Quality Award has been reviewed." I was told by the reviewer that this was part of the patrol process. I have a question about the process that I was advised in the Teahouse to ask here:
Where in the article is it noted that it was reviewed? I looked in the history and the talk page and found no record of it having been reviewed.
--
Ian Korman (
talk)
03:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Or is it something I'm doing? Doesn't that feature automatically log the AfD at the main log and didn't it automatically create the AfD page without us having to do that manually, or am I dreaming? Atsme Talk 📧 23:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi if anyone has the time and inclination, there is a growing queue of BLPS over at the Western Africa new pages sort that look doubtful in terms of notability. Some have been there for months and it would be good to have many eyes on them so they can be marked as reviewed or sent to AfD as appropriate. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently, I found out about the issue with the page curation tool and auto-templating of users pages when nominating a page for prod or AfD. However, yesterday I was made aware of yet another issue with the tool. When you use it to send a redirect for discussion, it does not automatically fill in the target field on the discussion page. Another time I will be using Twinkle instead. Onel5969 TT me 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I like to work on the pages from the back of the queue, because they're often the most challenging ones. Often, however, they're really tough: articles with borderline notability that got recreated, content forks, movies or sports events with committed fans, etc. I think I could learn a lot from a group VOIP session with screen sharing where a small group of us go through articles one by one and agree on what the right action is. Who's keen? I'm in the Central European timezone, but for this purpose I'd be open to any time of the day or night on a weekend. Pinging likely candidates: @ Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Utopes, Polyamorph, and Onel5969: -- Slashme ( talk) 09:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually really keen on this so I'd love to try it out tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Anybody who would like to join, please vote on the screen sharing / chat preference. -- Slashme ( talk) 18:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly suggest we use Wikimedia's service: Jitsi. I'll get a token and it's really easy to dial into: no special software needed. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Excellent idea, and for once I can even make the time. I'm in. Strongly suggest Jitsi, too - it really is the most hassle-free of current video conferencing options (also Open Source). One note: don't join on Firefox, that seems to have a tendency to screw up the microphone. Chrome works best for me. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Australian Eastern Standard Time
Name | Jitsi | Discord | Google chat | Skype | Zoom | Zulip |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slashme | ||||||
Elmidae | no idea? | |||||
Cassiopeia | ||||||
Your name here |
@ Slashme: did you get a ticket for Wikimedia meet? If not L235 might have one we can use as we're only a couple minutes out from 15:00. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, that was a great success and I learned a lot! I'd love to do this again. I'm not going to be available for the next three to four weekends, but will be willing to host again when I get back.
Jitsi worked well, screen sharing was readable and audio was mostly fine. Was really great to meet Barkeep49, Rosguill and Vexations in person as it were. -- Slashme ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are proposed or under construction football stadiums notable? Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability#Stadiums and indoor arenas suggest they only gain notability once matches have been played. Anybody any thoughts on this? -- John B123 ( talk) 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The examples given above all pass via WP:GNG through sufficient general coverage, which has nothing to do with this special guideline.. The special notability guidelines supplement WP:GNG, which is generally harder to satisfy. If plenty of newspapers write about a stadium under construction, we can have an article. If they don't, then this SNG does not make it so we can (again, my interpretation). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'm a little rusty. How are we dealing with articles like Rolling Loud? I've marked it reviewed right now, since it doesn't seem overly promotional to me, but like GSS, I might have draftified, only it had been and then moved back. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Working the really old end of the cue (2003)
Looks like all agree that the article should not exist.
Somebody converted Bengal potatoes to a redirect to Wikipedia cookbooks. Then an experiencd editor removed the redirect and put in text that says "this article does not exist" and then gave a link to the the recipe at wikipedia cook books. Is this correct or should it be a simple redirect or should it be completely deleted? North8000 ( talk) 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I know that WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN don't apply to Futsal. What are the rules regarding Futsal notability? Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
For the last few days Community Tech Bot hasn’t provided a report on top reviewers for the previous day, and the SDZerobot is continuing to list and sort articles that have been patrolled. Is this a replag thing or is something else happening? Mccapra ( talk) 02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_creations_by_Soul_Crusher. The thread may end up deciding to review their mass creations. Someone was seeking input from NPP. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't seen any change on NCOLLATH, but of late there has been a spate of articles like C. J. Walker (basketball), which while well sourced are of the type which is of run-of-the-mill college athletes, who garner the usual WP:ROUTINE coverage one would expect. In the past, these types of articles would normally be redirected to the college team's page, but recently there's been a lot of pushback such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Burns. What's the current idea regarding these types of articles. Onel5969 TT me 16:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Dude is named in the titles, at least. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I am not sure if it's only me who is experiencing this bug. The toolbar disappears every now and then. It was appearing until yesterday and when I logged in today to review new pages it no longer shows. I logged off and logged in a few times but that did not fix the problem. Please can anyone advise how I fix this?.-- Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 07:18, 20 September 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Hello NPP, I attempted to nominate XLAB for deletion using the Curation Toolbar. However, I'm not sure it "stuck." The original deletion template on the page pointed to a red-linked "this article's entry." I clicked on this to create the page but I don't see XLAB in the 6 May AfD list. Just checking to see if I made a mistake with the page curation toolbar. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(I'm no js guru, but I think the following is the info you need. If not let me know. I'm using Firefox 76.0 (64 bit) on a MacBook Pro):
Long list of errors
|
---|
|
Atsme Talk 📧 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:Holy mackeral - tripled it!! Atsme Talk 📧 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I created an article Kere Basadi 2 months back. It hasn't been reviewed yet. Could you please confirm where to submit this article for review?
- Thanks Pratyk321 ( talk · contribs)
I'm trying to review Seo Woo-jin, but I'm stuck figuring out notability because every source is a foreign language source. Are foreign language sources allowed on Wikipedia, and if they are, is it considered acceptable for new articles (or, I guess, any article) to rely entirely on them? ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 03:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Should we try to recruit more reviewers? The backlog is pushing up towards 10k. Mccapra ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Couple thoughts. I guess that there are about 700 new pages per day to review. And there are 41 reviewers who average at least 2 reviews per day. and about 700 current (non-admin) reviewers who don't. Maybe we could get more numbers done by increasing the "41".
Also some specialists on sports might help. It seems like 1/2 of everyone on the planet who ever played a game meets the SNG :-) and numerically Wikipedia is becoming a directory of obscure athletes so maybe some people who know enough to quickly assess whether a sports player is in the "1/2" could get a lot of articles done. Or maybe we have that already.
Finally, as an experienced editor (51,000 manual edits over 11 years) who is new to NPP, I can say that it's really a big leap to get fluent at this. Rather than needing to know "almost as much as an administrator" , fluency here requires knowing much more than a typical admin. Besides core policies and guidelines, 100% knowledge or most or all of the SNG's is just a start. Then you need to learn in what areas accepted practices (including those at AFD) override WP:notability. From reading this column, it sounds like I need to find out what Twinkle is and how to use it because the "proper" curation tools don't work for AFD's? Point being, maybe assisting folks in becoming fluent reviewers could get a lot more reviews done.
Sometimes observations by the new dummy guy (me) might be helpful. Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 20:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
North8000, WP:Twinkle is pretty easy to install, and is quite frankly a godsend not just for NPP but for a whole litany of maintenance admin-adjacent tasks signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Rosguill: Thanks; I'll go there and learn/use. North8000 ( talk) 10:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
While consulting some Wikipedia pages yesterday, I noticed that WP:NPPDRAFT's advice was significantly different from the text at WP:DRAFTIFY, which covers essentially the same topic. As these are both formally supplement pages, I went ahead and copied the information from DRAFTIFY over into NPPDRAFT, as it more closely reflects the broader Wikipedia attitude toward when to move articles to draftspace. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Could someone a bit more techy than me please look at this page? I want to move it to draft because it is likely that the topic is notable, but the article is poorly written and does not have RIS. The move to draft is not accepted for some reason. There isn’t a draft page of the same name that I can see so there may be some other technical issue with the page. Many thanks Mccapra ( talk) 06:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
See WP:NPPSORT ( User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting) - a new bot-generated report that sorts unreviewed articles by topics. These topics are predicted by ORES machine learning software. Will be updated at UTC noon, everyday. This is similar to WP:AFCSORT for AfC drafts.
Hope this helps in reducing the 10k NPP backlog.
Cheers, SD0001 ( talk) 18:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear fellow NPP members, Over the past academic year I have been working with students and law faculty to create articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. There is an explanation of the rationale and pedagogy behind this project on the front of my user page. The key point is that non-disruptive contributions were my priority.
When the project started I took feedback from WikiProject Law based on a few early articles. They pointed out the need to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM. I worked with the student editors to strike a balance between this guidance and the advice from my law faculty colleagues that it is often important to preserve and quote the exact language used in a decision.
In this respect, one thing I have noticed is that Earwig is giving a false positive on some of the articles due to the presence of direct quotes from the case decision. The case decisions are from the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) and its usuage rules for Irish decisions follows the Courts Service of Ireland regulations. Its rules allow for re-use and quoting as long as citations are provided. Earwig is also flagging common legal phrases and proper nouns. We are checking every article with Earwig to make sure that any flags it puts up relate to material that is properly quoted and cited or refer to common legal phrases and proper nouns. If anyone has concerns about content please let me know. Alternatively, I will have all the articles on my watchlist so I can respond to concerns on individual article talk pages. I'm letting WT:CP know about the articles too.
I will be moving articles to mainspace starting later today and tomorrow, and over the course of May. The law faculty and I are working through them in chunks to do the Earwig checks, formatting, and any final tidying.
AugusteBlanqui (
talk)
10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@ AugusteBlanqui: I sort of alternate, looking for "easier" (= compliant and well written) articles in newer feeds and then taking on the tougher older open ones. I ran across some of the articles that you noted while doing the former. What a great contribution to Wikipedia! Well written articles, on encyclopedic topics that need coverage in Wikipedia. My only "yellow alert" during reviewing was that they looked TOO well written and so I did a lot a checking for copied text.......in essence that the quotes from sources were identified as quotes. And they also looked good in that respect. Please pass along big "thumbs up" to everyone involved on this great contribution to Wikipedia. Sincerely North8000 ( talk) 23:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The new page Socionym is written as a dictionary entry, and probably has no hope of being more than that. What should one do with such a thing? -- JBL ( talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I see we've finally cross the dreaded frontier into the teens. Has this ever happened before? Mccapra ( talk) 13:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi Folks, What does it mean on the NPP dialog when it says Attack in the Possible issues field. It on Rule 3 adviser. scope_creep Talk 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I was at first wondering if Semiconductor saturable-absorber mirror was copied from [1]. But it turns out to be the other way around, because that page was split from Fiber laser. The book doesn't attribute Wikipedia. Is there a place to report these kinds of things? Sam-2727 ( talk) 03:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there anywhere that coverse the computer operational meanings of "patrol" vs. "curation", and "triage"? I recently got chasticized by somebody saying that I should have used "pagetriage" instead or article curation. North8000 ( talk) 11:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a discrepancy between
Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Deletion and
WP:NPPLOG. Whereas the former tells reviewers do not mark the page as reviewed
when tagging pages for deletion, the latter asks reviewers to mark as patrolled Any page that is tagged for speedy deletion, proposed for deletion, or nominated for discussion
. My gut feeling is that the former makes more sense, but I want to confirm here before making any changes. Thanks. --
Dps04 (
talk)
09:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t realise till just now, but learned here that mainspace articles automatically get picked up for indexing after 90 days. Aside from articles where a redirect is removed, we have articles in the NPP queue back to 130 days ago. If we don’t catch up to less than 90 days, patrolling isn’t stopping bad articles being indexed. Maybe we need more people working the back of the queue? Mccapra ( talk) 21:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the recommended way to handle severely flawed articles that have been created in the mainspace at same time a draft article exists? For example, Berkeley SkyDeck and Draft:Berkeley SkyDeck. If a draft didn't exist I would probably draftify the article but that is clearly not an option here. Is there some kind of speedy criteria in this situation or how should this be handled? Loksmythe ( talk) 01:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This article shouldn't belong to the encyclopedia, but wouldn't it be a stretch to call this an A1? The context is hard to ascertain, but it is certainly not a very short article, and although it's pretty much nonsense in the ordinary sense of the word, it isnt really total nonsense or a word salad under the strict definitions of "nonsense" in Wikipedia, as some of the sentences are understandaable with much difficulty. (I thought of the possibility of copyright violation, but then it seems not the entire thing is copied, so G12, which requires the entire article (or basically the entire article) to be copied, doesn't quite apply either). And the common deletion criteria (e.g. A7, G11) doesn't really fit here. It seems prod is the only correct option? -- Dps04 ( talk) 14:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently, curation messages about articles created by Wiki Education student editors are sometimes sent to the wrong editor, because of a technical issue involving who initially created the student sandbox page. Can the page curation process or script send the {{ Taggednote-NPF}} or other curation message to the Talk page of the student editor who actually created all of the article content in their sandbox, rather than to the Wiki Education content expert assigned to helping the student and who created a rump sandbox on their behalf with with a 33-byte template?
Wiki Education supports and collaborates with university classes whose students have assignments from their professor to write or modify articles for Wikipedia. These classes are monitored and assisted by Wikipedia editors associated with WMF known as "content experts", who (among other things) guide and mentor these new student editors in getting on board as Wikipedia editors. One standard procedure is for the content expert to create a rump sandbox in the student editors user space, consisting of nothing but {{
dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}
to get them started; for example,
here. (This was formerly
User:Iaguayo/sandbox, and then was expanded by student editor
Iaguayo (
talk ·
contribs) until it became
this 15kb article.)
Then, a page curation volunteer like User:North8000 comes along and uses the page creation script in the context of curating Geri Montano, and the tool sends the {{ Taggednote-NPF}} message to the Talk page of the creator of the page. Only under current circumstances, the message goes to the Wiki Ed content expert who created the 33-byte sandbox, not to the student who developed the 15kb article, as in this NPF message added to the Talk page of Wiki Education content expert User:Shalor (Wiki Ed).
Creation of a rump sandbox by a Wiki Ed/WMF content expert on behalf of a student editor is a normal procedure. (In this case, the student eventually moved their sandbox to main space after they were ready with it.) Given that the Wiki Ed content expert is not the one really responsible for the creation of the article, but only the initial sandbox, is there some way that the page curation process can assign the NPF note (or other page curation message) to the student editor instead?
I'm not too familiar with tags, but one thing that occurs to me, is that maybe it could be done via an edit summary tag. Upon sandbox creation via {{ dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}, a tag could be added to the edit summary naming the student editor in the tag as a tag parameter value. If that is possible, then the curation process could detect that value in the initial edit and act accordingly. If it's not, then alternatively, the Wiki Ed procedure that creates the sandbox in the first place and which currently adds an edit summary like, "Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}' " could be modified, either automatically or by conventional manual procedure, to instead add an edit summary like, "Created page with '{{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}' on behalf of user=[[User:Example]] ". The page curation process or script would then pick up the user from the summary, and use it to determine who to send the curation message to. Mathglot ( talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Given that the Wiki Ed content expert is not the one really responsible for the creation of the article, but only the initial sandbox.... Insofar as none of these students would be editing were it not for an assignment, and, in my experience, student editors are generally intimidated and overwhelmed by any message to their talk page, then should not the Wiki Ed content expert and the instructor of the course ideally take responsibility for whatever ends up published here? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that this particular article is a good general example of the topics being discussed, but not for the mechanics involved. Because.... I used the curation tool to tag the article for notability and it appears that no messages went to any user pages. Then I edited the talk page of the article and put that explanation and info in there. In this case I had two intended recipients. One might be anybody who is interested in the article to look for and add WP:GNG type sources, or at least feel that they were offered a chance and time to do so VS. a fast trip to AFD. Second, since I intended to leave it marked as un-reviewed (due to being close to the line on wp:notability) to get a second reviewer rather than taking it to AFD, I thought that my notes on the digging I did might be helpful to a second reviewer. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is anyone getting Earwig’s copyvio detector to load properly at the moment? It keeps timing out for me. Mccapra ( talk) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So, I have been a bit bolder in my reviews recently and ran into a single-source article (or two) that seems to meet SNG per the source which gives the wrong name. It seems I will have more questions for NPPR after I figure out the rest of it. So, in order not to split the discussion, I was wondering if interested editors could visit the discussion linked in the header, and chime in with respect to how to do NPPing in these cases. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Some new page reviewers may be interested in this village pump discussion. — Paleo Neonate – 11:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This is mostly about me learning how to handle borderline ones. LutosAir_Quintet has been tagged for notability since early April. It doesn't have and I can't find any in-depth independent coverage of them. Nor anything that makes them clearly meet a SNG criteria. Yet they appear to be very prominent and active, and there is a lot of coverage with short mentions of them. The have an article in the Polish Wikipedia, their home country. To me, between a preponderance of all of the above, plus guessing that this would almost certainly kept if taken to AFD, I would pass this one. Could an experienced reviewer critique me on this? Thanks North8000 ( talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49: Thanks! That is very helpful! One question When you said "...what would happen at AfD is not part of our evaluation matrix" is using Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes as a guide sort of an exception to that? Before when I took some to AFD that clearly failed wp:GNG and SNG the dialog there implied that my nomination was in error because "xxxxx type articles are always kept". For example, a small train station on a major rail line. I never tried it with a town, but a very tiny town in India would be another example. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Quote from OUTCOMES
|
---|
This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects. This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view. As guidelines and actual practice change, this page should be updated to reflect current outcomes. Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. This page simply attempts to summarize Wikipedia's common daily practice with respect to deletion debates. If you feel that an outcome common to articles like the one you are discussing does not apply, then give a common-sense or guidelines-based reason why it shouldn't apply. Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as "Notability is only an optional guideline" or "We always keep these articles". |
Thanks! I don't know whether to take this any further, I don't want to be asking for a tidy world that doesn't exit, just trying to avoid doing anything that would be considered to be a mistake by NPP norms. When there is a pretty strong and direct conflict between between Outcomes and wp:GNG/SNG's, is going either way a mistake?:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities.and NGEO says
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.I don't see a mismatch between OUTCOMES and NGEO. So that Indian village is likely notable and can safely be marked reviewed. In terms of #2 there is no actual guideline just an essay. OUTCOMES says
Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD.That has also been my experience. So do you think that this is an exception to that? Some reason it's different enough that it would get a different result? If yes, make your case. If no then mark it reviewed. If the answer is no but it bothers you try and start a discussion - though in the case of transportation I don't see that changing just given the number of editors we have who like our current standards. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I made a suggestion at ANI that was inspired by a GF user who creates lots of stubs and stubees. Most AfC/NPP editors are aware of the problem and that we are left with lots of work (and a backlog) because we have to expand and source those submissions before they will even meet the basic requirements of being an article stub. In the interim, the creator is credited for creating an article while we spend hours making it one as our backlog grows. I'm of the mind that we may be able to convince the WMF to automate the process by modifying how new articles are accepted upon submission (before they are actually created in mainspace), be it through AfC, draft space, or first created directly in mainspace. Sulferboy offered to help me put a proposal together so I'm pinging him now.
I was thinking an instruction could be coded to prevent article creation if the submission is:
The program would return an error message with instructions for what needs to be fixed in order for the article to be published - not unlike submitting a form and having it rejected because you forgot to add a phone number, or the email address wasn't valid. Perhaps JS or Lua could accomplish this task? I'm pinging 2 programmers who have always been able to answer my crazy questions, RexxS, Wbm1058 and DannyS712, just to make sure that what I'm proposing is doable before we add it to our wishlist for WMF. I'm thinking that such a process will be a welcome addition because it will help eliminate the junk stubees and contribute to the reduction of the backlogs at AfC, NPP, and AfD. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Atsme Talk 📧 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Minimum word limits are screened by Special:ShortPages. There are legitimate short pages such as Wiktionary redirects and set indexes that need {{ subst:Long comment}}-tagged to whitelist them.
The spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page. A similar control mechanism could be used to stop misspellings but I think the misspelling list for such blacklisting would need to be maintained by administrators. Too many editors are obsessive about tagging things which are borderline legitimate alternative spellings as flat-out misspellings. – wbm1058 ( talk) 13:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Responding to one note above, I don't know how it rolls at AFC, but at NPP and AFD, if reviewer has to prove a negative that suitable sources don't exist for wp:notability, that a tiny stub does consume a lot of time. IMO that's why I think it should be the editor's responsibility to the basis for wp:notability IN THE ARTICLE including sources if the basis is wp:gng. And the reviewer would review only the provided sources. North8000 ( talk) 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the page curation's AfD function broken? I tried to AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Are_Blytt&type=revision&diff=961115804&oldid=955312103&diffmode=source but no AfD page was created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are Blytt. This is the second time this has happened, I also had problems with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic scandal, I ended up redoing that one with Twinkle. Vexations ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I keep on getting this. [3]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 11:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, it appears that User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting has not updated since 3 June. Is this intentional or is something off with the bot? I've found the tool very useful for finding articles to review. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we're solidly over 10,000 backlog. Elsewhere it's been written that the way that Wikipedia gets so much volunteer help is a combination that they enjoy it and of fulfilling a mission. I guess we get about 700 articles per day. Not counting admins I think that there are about 700 with the reviewing tool. Yet there only about 66 reviewers who average at least one article per day and only 40 who average 2 articles per day. So IMO what's needed is to help people become regular reviewers. IMO this is because it is so difficult to get fluent / comfortable / knowledgeable at this. In real life / business I'm a good trainer and writer of "dummies guide to....." because I have good empathy/understanding for the people who don't know the topic and what they need. Let's say that someone is an experienced editor, and is familiar with wp:gng, the SNG's and wp:not. They still have these big hurdles to learn:
If anybody ever wanted to write more guidance to help in these areas I'd be happy to help. As a recent newbie here I still have the much needed "dummy" qualification. :-) North8000 ( talk) 14:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In this section my focus was on an easy way to get more reviewers active. North8000 ( talk) 17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO the scope and the numbers points to a few obvious things:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, and I should preface this by saying that I don't understand coding at all, but it appears that PageTriage is flagging articles that use {{ Sfn}} style-citation as having no citations. Is this something that could be fixed easily? No big deal if not. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Folks. Who is Gen'd up on predatory journals. What is the procedure regarding them. I have ATPase Domain 3B which is showing up two pink references, indicating they are predatory. Thanks. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so a NPP editor tagged an article with a refimprove tag. I assume I was alerted because I created the page. So far so good.
I did not receive a talk page message (as the documentation seems to indicate), only the alert notification. So, does this mean we can send alerts to other users? How does this alerting work? CapnZapp ( talk) 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
These two terms appear to be used interchangeably. Is there a distinction that I am missing, or do they mean the same thing in this context? -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Koushik Pain (currently blocked) created a series of articles about Ashoka Chakra awardees, most of them are cases of blatant copyvio (mostly copy-paste from external sources). I have already reported some of the articles and they are deleted. There are still a lot of articles.
I wrote a user-space essay with some thoughts about the role that NPP plays in reproducing Wikipedia's systemic bias, User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist. The title is intentionally provocative, and I'd appreciate people's thoughts on the essay. I think that many new page reviewers already informally practice some of the behaviors that I suggest adopting in the essay, but I'm wondering what people think about putting them into practice on a broader scale. Inasmuch as many of us are keenly aware of the problems of systemic bias on Wikipedia, it may do well to formally address the issue as part of our NPP onboarding process alongside tutorials other core components of new page reviewing. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I probably speak for a lot of new page patrollers in saying that I just attempt to do the job properly, and to figure out exactly what "properly" is. And this includes borderline AFD decisions.North8000 ( talk) 19:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
There's one situation where I think that some systemic bias against non-English topics is unavoidable. This is where the editor never bothered to put in wp:notability-related sources, and the NPP patrol is supposedly expected to search the world, and review the sources that they find to prove that wp:notability ones don't exist before AFD'ing it. For a NPP person to do this for the world of non-English sources is unrealistic to put it mildly. Something that the millions of editors don't have the person-hours to do you can't expect the 70 NPP people who do 99% of the reviews of the 700 articles per day that they generate.North8000 ( talk) 19:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
At AFD's I never take on the role as an advocate for deletion. If people make a faulty argument that I screwed up, I might cite the policy in response. In fact, a common phenomena is that the AFD triggers a massive flurry of work adding sources and content and I end up reversing my stance to "keep". North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"extended benefit of the doubt"is in fact an admission that you think Wikipedia's mission is forward a political agenda and that you, who claim to be an admin, are fine overlooking the rules when it suits that political preference. This sort of affirmative action take on WP:N only creates derision, as we assume that articles on some subjects are just there to placate the chattering class, not that those articles should exist on merit. It used to be, we established community rules and then we stuck to them, without regard to race, class, sex, etc. and efforts to
"enforce a bureaucracy"were the application of those community standards. What you stupidly encourage is the worst sort of favoritism to replace objectivity. I don't think you ought to have a mop if you cannot agree to stick to community consensus. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
the chattering class. To be quite honest, the set of experiences that immediately precipitated this essay was seeing a slew of submissions of films from regional Indian cinema that did meet notability guidelines, but which had been previously deleted following PRODs or AfDs on less well-written versions of the article by different editors. These articles, by our own guidelines, should not have been deleted in the first place, but we were unable to recognize that at the time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It would seem to me that a routine of "how to build a new article" should include looking for and including wp:notability-related sourcing. How is that radical? If the responsibility of new article creation is limited to generating titles and then it is the responsibility of NPP to do a world-wide source search and confirm lack of suitable sources, then wikipedia needs only about 70 title generators and a million source researchers and curators instead of the current opposite. :-) North8000 ( talk) 21:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Sad news for all of us at NPP. The WikiEd foundation formally announced a reduction in scope in how WikiEd will be supporting students for the coming year at the education noticeboard. As student editors come into contact with NPP regularly and because they can be a big time sink I"m going to quote an excerpt at length:
What does this mean for our programs on English Wikipedia? We will continue to run our Student Program, where students edit Wikipedia as a class assignment, and our Scholars & Scientists Program, where we train subject matter experts to edit, just with fewer numbers than before. In particular, with our Student Program, we have announced a stricter application process to participate in the fall 2020 term. We will be accepting some courses per normal, and some under the condition that student work stays in sandboxes until our staff has a chance to review the student work, in an effort to avoid putting additional burden on the volunteer editing community. As always, if you see any problematic editing from student editors in our program (they'll have a Wiki Education banner on their user page that links to their course), please flag it here on the Education Noticeboard or ping User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Our intention with this plan is to balance providing good support to participants without causing some courses to teach without our support. We hope this will result in good quality content on Wikipedia with minimal disruption to volunteer efforts.
If you find courses that are editing without WikiEd support and they are causing issues WP:ENB continues to be a place to note it. Obviously this page can also be used if discussion is needed about an appropriate NPP response to student editors as well. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Could I ask for help with the talk page of this article please? The original article was redirected to Kanafeh a while ago, along with its talk page. I think the redirect on the article was reverted recently and it was recreated. However the talk page still redirects to the talk page of Kanafeh. I’ve had a look at this but I’m afraid if I try to revert the redirect so there’s a proper talk page at Kadaif I’ll end up making a gigantic mess and annoying everyone. Could someone with decent hand+eye coordination fix it so Kanafeh keeps its talk page and Kadaif gets one back? Many thanks. Mccapra ( talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a variety of proposals around changing PROD that New Page Patrollers might be interested in participating in. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I recently started looking at footy articles, and came across a batch of new ones from a prolific creator with more than a few articles still in the queue which don't seem to meet NFOOTY, but some of the similar articles from them have already been marked as reviewed.
I would like to know what, if anything, I am missing in my reading of NFOOTY. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Could some other reviewers please take a look at a run of articles about schools in Ethiopia here. I think they’re a bit unusual from a notability point of view. The schools seem like run of the mill non notable schools but unusually they have been studied as part of a piece of research into sanitation. My view is that despite coverage in these RIS they’re not notable, but as I’ve never come across a similar case I’d welcome others’ views. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
When going through new page review I pick and choose what to tag, but what am I suppose to do when another editor keeps removing a template like ref-improve, like on this article? Govvy ( talk) 13:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In light of this case, I'd like to propose again that a bot automatically un-patrol pages creating by global rollbackers that are not locally autopatrolled -- DannyS712 ( talk) 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Support. The real fix is that the right should no be included with global rollbacker but also do here per Barkeep. North8000 ( talk) 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC);
BRFA filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72 -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to request this, but I was wondering if a NPP member could take a look at this article. It appears to be a first effort created by a new account directly in the article mainspace. The creator's username also might indicate a case of WP:AUTO and WP:COISELF. The article has tons of problems such as incorrect formatting and syntax, promotional tone, possible image copyright issues, non-free content issues, embedded external links, but many of those are things that can be cleaned up without too much difficulty. The main concern, however, has to do with WP:BIO and whether the subject is Wikipedia notable. As stated above, the article never went through AfC so it never really got assessed for notability. It's template to just WP:DRAFTIFY this and give the creator suggestions on how to improve things ( H:YFA, WP:REFB, etc.), and then advise them to submit it to AfC when they think it's ready, but if NPP feels the article is viable there's probably no need for any of that. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know what is going on with the lagging numbers and missing sections in the Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers report? No big deal, but I like to look at that report to see how much work everyone is doing. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I've been working the oldest end of the que and bit the bullet and took a sports article that looked like it should go to AFD. :-) It was about the future 20/21 season of a sports team. 2020-21 Queen of the South F.C. season. Currently there is no content about the subject of the article and no references about the subject of the article. It provides an outline/ framework for a future article when the subject occurs. The few sentences of content and all of the references are about previous seasons. It is probable that if/when the season occurs, the article would be a "keep", but right now none of that exists.
I AFD'd it and it's coming back as an overwhelming "keep". Is there a common practice at NPP on what to do with articles that are likely to have suitable sources in the future but not now?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The new page patroller and autopatrolled editor Isingness has been blocked for UPE spamming (credit to GSS). I've listed their patrols here: Special:Permanentlink/969319005. MER-C 18:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
44k edits in three months!? So multiple people working from that account simultaneously like scope says. Probably a nightmare to implement but zoom logs me out of one device if I login to the same account on another device. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to generate a listing for TheImaCow. It is here: Special:Permanentlink/969583341#Pages moved from draft to main (TheImaCow). MER-C 09:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
quarry:query/36304 searches through the logs of all of the pages patrolled by Isingness that still exist, and sorts them into those still in the page curation system (ones that should just be unreviewed) and those no longer in the system (ones that need to be re-enqueued). Currently it shows 143 to re-enqueue and 18 to unreview. I'd like to, via script, re-enqueue and unreview all of the pages accordingly, with a 3 second delay between each action per the rate limit. I haven't written the full code yet, but the framework for the delay is written if anyone wants to see it. Since there isn't a full process to go by, I suggest that reviewers who support or oppose this mass action (on a one-time basis) comment below. I won't actually do it until there is at least some support. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 10:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Occasionally while I’m logged in I go to an article and find that the curation toolbar doesn’t appear on my screen. Usually if I refresh the page, it appears. However when I go to Marcos jewels it just won’t appear at all. Does it show for anyone else with that article? Is there something I can do to make it appear? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 06:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks Ive had this problem for a couple of day on this specific article but it still comes up twice a day on SDZerobot as unreviewed. I’ll report it as you suggest. Mccapra ( talk) 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I received the notice "The page
Thailand Quality Award has been reviewed." I was told by the reviewer that this was part of the patrol process. I have a question about the process that I was advised in the Teahouse to ask here:
Where in the article is it noted that it was reviewed? I looked in the history and the talk page and found no record of it having been reviewed.
--
Ian Korman (
talk)
03:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Or is it something I'm doing? Doesn't that feature automatically log the AfD at the main log and didn't it automatically create the AfD page without us having to do that manually, or am I dreaming? Atsme Talk 📧 23:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi if anyone has the time and inclination, there is a growing queue of BLPS over at the Western Africa new pages sort that look doubtful in terms of notability. Some have been there for months and it would be good to have many eyes on them so they can be marked as reviewed or sent to AfD as appropriate. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently, I found out about the issue with the page curation tool and auto-templating of users pages when nominating a page for prod or AfD. However, yesterday I was made aware of yet another issue with the tool. When you use it to send a redirect for discussion, it does not automatically fill in the target field on the discussion page. Another time I will be using Twinkle instead. Onel5969 TT me 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I like to work on the pages from the back of the queue, because they're often the most challenging ones. Often, however, they're really tough: articles with borderline notability that got recreated, content forks, movies or sports events with committed fans, etc. I think I could learn a lot from a group VOIP session with screen sharing where a small group of us go through articles one by one and agree on what the right action is. Who's keen? I'm in the Central European timezone, but for this purpose I'd be open to any time of the day or night on a weekend. Pinging likely candidates: @ Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Utopes, Polyamorph, and Onel5969: -- Slashme ( talk) 09:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually really keen on this so I'd love to try it out tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Anybody who would like to join, please vote on the screen sharing / chat preference. -- Slashme ( talk) 18:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly suggest we use Wikimedia's service: Jitsi. I'll get a token and it's really easy to dial into: no special software needed. -- Slashme ( talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Excellent idea, and for once I can even make the time. I'm in. Strongly suggest Jitsi, too - it really is the most hassle-free of current video conferencing options (also Open Source). One note: don't join on Firefox, that seems to have a tendency to screw up the microphone. Chrome works best for me. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Australian Eastern Standard Time
Name | Jitsi | Discord | Google chat | Skype | Zoom | Zulip |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slashme | ||||||
Elmidae | no idea? | |||||
Cassiopeia | ||||||
Your name here |
@ Slashme: did you get a ticket for Wikimedia meet? If not L235 might have one we can use as we're only a couple minutes out from 15:00. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, that was a great success and I learned a lot! I'd love to do this again. I'm not going to be available for the next three to four weekends, but will be willing to host again when I get back.
Jitsi worked well, screen sharing was readable and audio was mostly fine. Was really great to meet Barkeep49, Rosguill and Vexations in person as it were. -- Slashme ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Are proposed or under construction football stadiums notable? Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability#Stadiums and indoor arenas suggest they only gain notability once matches have been played. Anybody any thoughts on this? -- John B123 ( talk) 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The examples given above all pass via WP:GNG through sufficient general coverage, which has nothing to do with this special guideline.. The special notability guidelines supplement WP:GNG, which is generally harder to satisfy. If plenty of newspapers write about a stadium under construction, we can have an article. If they don't, then this SNG does not make it so we can (again, my interpretation). -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'm a little rusty. How are we dealing with articles like Rolling Loud? I've marked it reviewed right now, since it doesn't seem overly promotional to me, but like GSS, I might have draftified, only it had been and then moved back. Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Working the really old end of the cue (2003)
Looks like all agree that the article should not exist.
Somebody converted Bengal potatoes to a redirect to Wikipedia cookbooks. Then an experiencd editor removed the redirect and put in text that says "this article does not exist" and then gave a link to the the recipe at wikipedia cook books. Is this correct or should it be a simple redirect or should it be completely deleted? North8000 ( talk) 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I know that WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN don't apply to Futsal. What are the rules regarding Futsal notability? Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
For the last few days Community Tech Bot hasn’t provided a report on top reviewers for the previous day, and the SDZerobot is continuing to list and sort articles that have been patrolled. Is this a replag thing or is something else happening? Mccapra ( talk) 02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_creations_by_Soul_Crusher. The thread may end up deciding to review their mass creations. Someone was seeking input from NPP. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I haven't seen any change on NCOLLATH, but of late there has been a spate of articles like C. J. Walker (basketball), which while well sourced are of the type which is of run-of-the-mill college athletes, who garner the usual WP:ROUTINE coverage one would expect. In the past, these types of articles would normally be redirected to the college team's page, but recently there's been a lot of pushback such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Burns. What's the current idea regarding these types of articles. Onel5969 TT me 16:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Dude is named in the titles, at least. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I am not sure if it's only me who is experiencing this bug. The toolbar disappears every now and then. It was appearing until yesterday and when I logged in today to review new pages it no longer shows. I logged off and logged in a few times but that did not fix the problem. Please can anyone advise how I fix this?.-- Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 07:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)