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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
From Wikipedia:New pages patrol#The purpose of reviewing new pages: When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again at Curation. In many cases the AfC reviewer has autopatrolled rights, so after moving articles from draft to mainspace they don't appear in the NewPagesFeed. This seems to defeat new articles getting a second check after passing AfC. -- John B123 ( talk) 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to prevent this from happening:
I was not aware this could happen, but this appears to have occurred with the page Tariq Mahmud Naim, it even shows up on Google. It doesn't appear to be possible to un-patrol your own creations.
– Thjarkur (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Great to see the number of articles waiting for patrol coming down so fast, but we still have some tough articles that have been sitting at the back of the queue since May. More eyes there would be very helpful. Mccapra ( talk) 17:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor take a look at the discussion Talk:Townships of China#Proposed merge of Similar to Township Units of China into Townships of China, and close it if you feel warranted? Thanks. Ping me if you do, and I'll take care of the merge. I'm tired of seeing this article in the queue. Onel5969 TT me 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, Could we please revisit the wording of some of the standard messages left on user talk pages through the page curation system?
See
User talk:Citrivescence/Archive 2#I have sent you a note about a page you started 3 and
User talk:ნიკოლოზ_ზივზივაძე#Ways to improve Nabakevi Church for a couple of recent examples. Both include an invitation to leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|editorname}}
" . Both have the wording "And, don't forget to sign your reply ...
".
I suggest that the word "prepend" is beyond the vocabulary of most editors: could we just say "leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|editorname}}"? Even "prefix" would be less obscure. The fact that "prepend" includes "end" probably makes it even more confusing for people who don't know the word.
I was taught in primary school not to start a sentence with "And". Could we just say "Please remember to sign your reply..."? Pam D 07:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, very new reviewer here. Is there a quick way to run pages through Earwig's tool? I've just been opening the page on Toolforge each time I want to check something, which works OK but is a bit clunky. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 22:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've re-added White Lady (cocktail) to the page patrol list for a second opinion. I believe a merge and restoration of the former 13 year old redirect is necessary, a user has identified a different page as the target (and has got a little arsey over it) so I request a second opinion. Polyamorph ( talk) 02:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Two editors, Nina1009 and ნიკოლოზ ზივზივაძე, appear to be bulk-creating articles on churches (and other buildings) in Abkhazia. Most of these are stubs with only one reference, http://maps.nekeri.net/ , which is only enough to prove their existence and does not demonstrate notability?.
Should these be bulk-draftified? Can they be merged to a "Churches in Abkhazia" article? And with two editors, is there a coordinated effort to create these articles? If so, can it be informed about WP:Notability guidelines? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Could some other reviewers please take a look at this article stuck in the queue? It seems to be massively-sourced rubbish, a mix of promotion, attack, trivia and incoherent nonsense. Above my pay grade, particularly on a Friday evening. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, there have recently(ish) been several creations of indoor arenas that are still under construction, with little more than a sentence (i.e. Eddie891's arena is a planned 15,000 seat arena to be built in Eddie891's town
). See for instance,
Sala Polivalentă (Timișoara). I think it makes sense to redirect them to
List_of_indoor_arenas_in_Europe#Arenas_under_construction, until there's more to say. Thoughts?
Eddie891
Talk
Work 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's my understanding that meeting WP:NSPORT's SNGs is sufficient to meet notability requirements. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 7 that is suggesting both the SNG and WP:GNG are required to be met. I don't know about everybody else, but I rely a lot on SNGs when reviewing articles. Anybody any thoughts on this? -- John B123 ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
For future reference:
-- John B123 ( talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In reviewing the back of the queue, I came across a bunch of journal articles on June 29, like International Journal of Digital Earth, Journal of Spatial Science, and Geocarto International. I think this is fitting in light of the SNG/GNG directly above. As per WP:JOURNALCRIT, #1, "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies". Now, the word, "usually" sticks out to me. So, to me, when a journal has an extremely low impact factor (in my mind, it's less than 10), that factor alone does not make the journal qualify. Therefore, other factors need to exist to make it pass notability criteria. Most of these articles have only 1 or 2 citations, either primary sourcing, or a simple listing. I draftified two of them, since they both meet all 3 of the first criteria in draftify, but the article creator is a little bent out of shape by my actions, see Draft talk:Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society. Could use some input from other reviewers on this. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue with those articles is that they are stubs, not that they aren't notable and don't belong in mainspace. See also User_talk:Fgnievinski/Archive_2#Journal stubs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paid_editor_blocked_with_30,000_edits. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
most of them already have autopatrol) does make this harder to assess. I feel like I've personally rarely looked at an autopatrol request that's been made by an editor creating more than an article a month for any significant period of time, but it makes sense that there's plenty of old hands making good use of the perm. I like the 3rd-party nomination only idea, that should make it much harder for UPE, reduce the number of good-faith editors who want it for hat-collecting reasons (and who will be discouraged from editing when an admin says no), while still letting us exempt anyone who genuinely is creating tons of good articles that don't require review. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
“with great privilege comes great responsibility”- perhaps. Indeed, like DGG I used to regularly review the creations by Autopatrolled users, and as I said above, you can all see where it got me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
New reviewer here: should I pass this? It looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, is not a copyvio, and has already been been tagged with all the relevant tags. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out whether reviewing entails "it is an acceptable article" or just "it would not be deleted" speedily or at AfD. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Second, the article is a violation of WP:NOT CV, which is basic policy. and therefore makes all considerations of notability irrelevant. This can be fixed in some cases, and fortunately, this is one of them. . CVs list minor awards, and chapters in books, and memberships on editorial boards-- encyclopedia articles do not. Please observe the material I am removing in the next edits. There is usually from paid editors a third consideration, promotionalism , but this does not seem significant here--the article is reasonably objective. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone who is not involved, please take a look this merger discussion, it's been open for a couple of weeks, and if you feel there has been enough discussion, could you close it and ping me? I'll take care of the merge. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody give me a second opinion on Hardev Bahri. Whilst I think the subject is notable, I don't think notability is established on the page. Thanks. -- John B123 ( talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation.What material do you see in the article that's not supported by the references? It's a short article, if there's any at all, just tag that with an individual {{ citation needed}} tag, there's no need to decorate the top of the article with a big box message that only applies to a single sentence somewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about).(emphasis in original). – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Uanfala: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required to show notability ( WP:GNG). The article does not show this (especially as Bahri is not listed in later editions of Who's Who Of Indian Writers [4]). What tag would you suggest should be used to indicate this non-compliance with guidelines? -- John B123 ( talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Rosguill and DannyS712: I noticed that the applicable bot operator, DannyS712, is a template editor. Would it not make things simpler to lower the protection level to template protected? I do not think granting the small amount of editors (185) with the permission the ability to edit the list would be in any way problematic. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at List of Kuruluş: Osman characters? Limorina ( talk · contribs) seems incapable of waiting for an experienced reviewer to promote it from draft & has done so again despite my request to wait. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to find the source code for page curation as It is not a webwide feature for every language. Can I have the algorithm of the source code so that I can make some uses of it in other wikis? regards — A. Shohag ( pingme or Talk) 06:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Obvious WP:NPOL fail now, but given that she's the Democratic nominee for a Brooklyn seat in the New York State Assembly, it seems virtually guaranteed that she will pass WP:NPOL as of November 4, 2020. To pass as reviewed or not to pass? AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The docs seem to describe the tools and the process fairly well, but I haven't been able to find what review/approval actually does. I think it sets a flag to allow search engines to index the page. Is that right? And as a page creator, how can you tell if the page you started has been approved? Paulgush ( talk) 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. During recent weeks I've noticed a few articles being moved into draft space with the edit summary "segregate paid editing", or something similar. Was there a discussion somewhere about this? I couldn't find anything on the wp pages regarding paid editing. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi I often need to add the project banner for Military History to article talk pages. As I’m not very technical I just go to the project page each time, make a couple of clicks and then manually copy and paste the project banner onto the talk page. I wonder if anyone has a fiendishly clever shortcut I could use, like just typing a couple of characters and getting the full template without all the rigmarole? Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 12:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
. Best,
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
is not it, so I go back to the first suggestion.
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
that I’m looking for, but specifically something that adds the full spectrum banner with all the options rather than just the short version.
Mccapra (
talk) 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:User:Mccapra/Mil}}
. That should work I reckon. Best,
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Could somebody have a look at this article. I feel it is under-referenced but tagging as such is being resisted by the creator. Thanks. -- John B123 ( talk) 11:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Occasionally I come across an article by a banned/blocked user, as I am sure we all do. Sometimes, there is another editor who has done some work, sometimes significant work, on the article. When that happens, nothing to raise any alarms, but sometimes I come across two more articles by a banned/blocked user, and the same other editor has done work on them as well. This can raise an alarm of a potential sock. Going further, sometimes those socks are real easy to spot, but sometimes, those socks have been around for a while, and they are much more difficult to spot. Right now, there were a few articles by the banned user, ShakiraS12, which were also edited by user FanDePopLatino, such as Thalía (2013 album), Thalía (2013 album), and La Luz (Thalía and Myke Towers song). Now, this could just be an occurrence of simply being a fan of the same artist, but it could be something else. I hate making work for other editors, and I also hate making work for myself, so is there a tool that can be used to compare the edit history of two editors, to see if their is some commonality? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
wasnt able to use today to check a few articles (maybe it takes longer to load?)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Meisam Yousefi needs to go back to draft since notability is not established by the sources provided. It was copied to mainspace and there’s still a draft version of the article in draft space. Can someone please point me to the directions for how to deal with this? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Over the last three months or so, the backlog has been wrestled down by two thirds; most manifestly due to the efforts of Onel5969, Rosguill, and John B123. Big thanks all round, especially for not making Onel5969 slip back into the position of the sole finger plugged into the dyke! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello guys! I was reviewing the articles and stumbled upon a case which is new to me - so I need your help. The article AssadUllah Shah is obviously not ready for the mainspace, but the subject looks notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I wanted to move it to drafts but there's already a draft of the same article written by another user. Can you help me - what should be done in such cases? None of the CSD seems applicable... Thank you, best, Less Unless ( talk) 12:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Autopatrol and global rollback. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72, pages and redirects created by global rollbackers in the main namespace will now automatically be unpatrolled (unless the user has local autopatrol or admin rights), meaning we will likely see a (probably small) rise of the number of pages in the queue. I encourage any reviewers who see global rollbackers creating redirects that can be patrolled uncontroversially to nominate them at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So this article had me flummoxed. I was about to move it to Draft and then thought I'd ask here. List of Classes of British ships of World War II is just a first line noting intent to create and an under construction template. I'd think a sandbox or Draftspace would be the place to undertake such a major project, rather than banging it line by line into Mainspace. Would you agree - draft? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, folks. So I nominate Macaloney's Caledonian Distillery for speedy deletion, dumping the yuletide message on the creator's talk page [6] - and then User:Deb bangs in a COI tag before User:John_B123 also nominates the thing for speedy. I thought User:Deb had nixed it, but it's still there. It strikes me we have been a bit Keystone Cops - lots of us pitching in to one page that was reviewed and then nominated for deletion, originally by li'l ole me, but which appears to have been multiply so - a waste of people's time, arguably. Could someone with more experience explain what happened here and how we can avoid this level of duplication of effort in future? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
When a redirect is patrolled, and then the target changes, it is currently not added back to the queue. I propose that it should be (and will write the code) - thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hola. Nominated this one Cardiac Trials for Speedy G11, creator removed the tag. Creator then seems to have remade the page Cardiac trials, presumably to clean the history, so nominated that, too. Struck me as a bit naughty? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ve sometimes thought it would be useful to have a tool that allowed me to compare my actions with those of other reviewers. There must be average outcomes for NPP articles and it would be useful to me to know if I draftify a lot more articles than the average. I have an idea that I request speedy deletion less than a lot of other reviewers but I don’t really know. We’re all kind of flying blind which makes it easy to drift into bad habits. I’ve no idea whether my reviewing approach is in line with others’ or not. Mccapra ( talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We've had at least 784 new articles moved to draft space so far in November. I have done a spot check and I see many actions that don't seem to meet the requirements listed in WP:DRAFTIFY. Is anyone else watching this? What do you see? ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I pulled out a dozen randomly from the category. My assessment is that only two of these ( Draft:María Elena nitrate works, Draft:Rafael Delorme) appear to be accomplishing what we would hope from WP:DRAFTIFY.
Many reviewers are using the default MoveToDraft edit comment (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace) to justify the move to draft space. In most cases this does not apply to the move in question. Even if it did accurately describe the issue, this justification doesn't match up well with WP:DRAFTIFY criteria.
In many cases WP:DRAFTIFY appears to be used as a last resort for marginal and complicated cases. It seems likely that many of these will be WP:G13d in 6 months serving as a backdoor route to deletion which is very specifically not what it is intended for. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft | NPP edit comment | Merit (#1) | Serious problems (#2) | Not being improved (#3) | No COI (#4) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | No | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unnotable song |
Draft:Emma Corrin | incubate in draft, a red link is better than such a useless redirect | Yes | Yes | No, draftified 1 day after creation | Yes | Notable actress |
Draft:Positioning theory | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Possible WP:NEOLOGISM |
Draft:María Elena nitrate works | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | Maybe, draftified 7 days after creation | Yes | 9 references have been added. Waiting for AfC review. |
Draft:Kambainallur estate | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unsourced stub. May meet WP:GEOLAND, otherwise merge to Kambainallur |
Draft:Lucca Allen 2 | article already exists in draftspace, incubate in draftspace, and merge the two. | Yes | No | Maybe, draftified 24 days after last improvement by original author | Yes | Draft:Lucca Allen 2 and Draft:Lucca Allen are substantially the same; we don't need both. |
Draft:Expo 2027 | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | No | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unsourced stub. Likely WP:TOOSOON. |
Draft:Luke McGarry | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Giant plate of puff. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. | Yes | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 10 days after last significant improvement | No, 2 McGarry-related WP:SPAs | Has 83 refs |
Draft:Rafael Delorme | Segregate UPE | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | WP:DRAFTIFY #4 |
Draft:Sietske Hoekstra | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Maybe | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Has 5 refs. Appears to meet WP:GNG, potential WP:BLP1E problem. |
Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium | Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield County Infirmary | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 8 days after creation | Maybe, an accusation of "gaming the system" | No blanket consensus at this deletion discussion. How is moving to draft a good solution for this complex issue? |
Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 1 month after creation | Yes | Has 6 refs. Broadcast on GMA Network (company), may meet WP:NTV. |
Well if you look at the two presumed RIS (refs 2 and 6), ref 2 doesn’t mention the topic at all (it’s about events five years before the topic of the article came into existence) and ref 6 is essentially a press release from the owners of the tv station saying “there’s going to be a new tv station and here is our lineup of announcers”. So the article relies entirely on self-published sources (social media and a press release), with real news only being used to support the tangential detail of what happened to a predecessor station. I imagine that the likely outcome of an AfD discussion would be ‘draftify’. Mccapra ( talk) 04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I added some columns to my table above try and understand why my assessments were so far away from others here. I'm not sure how much that helped. It did, however, highlight an issue with
WP:DRAFTIFY criteria #3. Many of these were draftified on the same day or the day after they were created. I don't see how one can argue that there is no evidence of active improvement
at such an early stage. ~
Kvng (
talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
the article does not meet the required standardis trying to say. Maybe it should just say,
the article is likely to be deleted. ~ Kvng ( talk) 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to see a FAQ, or some best practices recommendations added somewhere, for those of us who got here by the side door, trying to determine the best procedure in a given case. My path here was after draftifying
A Nation on Trial based on the fact that it's been an unreferenced stub for eight years, but other approaches are possible. After
notifying the creator (who remains only intermittently active), I considered whether to Afd it, place a {{
merge to}}
template, or add the Draft to
WP:AFC. I ended up here, after noticing the {{
Drafts moved from mainspace}} template added to the Draft by a bot, and saw this highly related section title.
In general, while the documentation at individual guideline, how-to, info, and help pages is good, such as at WP:AFD, WP:MERGE, WP:AFC, WP:MOVE, WP:DRAFTS, WP:NPP, Template:Unreferenced, and so on, they are targeted at individual processes (i.e. the solution), rather than at how to determine which path to take (i.e., the question, and analysis of it). I'm not exactly sure of the solution—a FAQ, maybe?—but it seems like there should be better attention paid in our documentation generally to specific use cases faced by users (e.g., "What do I do with this long-term unreferenced stub?"), and then a paragraph or two of the possible avenues available to address it, and in particular, how to choose among them, given the characteristics of the individual case. The editor can then proceed from the question, to a list of options for possible resolution, to whatever the best procedure seems to be.
In this individual example of A Nation on Trial, I'd still like to know whether Draftifying was a good idea, but it's not obvious how to make that call, other than relying on general experience and knowledge of how things go around here. But I'm more interested in addressing the general case, of which that is merely an example. Without necessarily having to lay it out as a guideline (I'm not interested in instruction creep), we ought to be able to get people to the right guideline more efficiently, given a particular issue they are facing. Mathglot ( talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at WT:TV that maybe of interest to NPP regarding TV shows that have an individual article for most or all episodes and if they meet WP:GNG. The editor that started the discussion filed three batch AFDs regarding episodes of the current season of The Simpsons, various episodes from Game of Thrones and most of The Walking Dead episode articles. In the case of The Simpsons every episode was reviewed by someone here at NPP. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I keep wondering about the two big numbers that define the backlog. The total number of new pages entering the backlog (e.g per day or week) and the number of reviews being completed (e.g. per day or week) Are these numbers available somewhere? Would it be good / feasible to show them here? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This article may be of interest to New Page Patrollers as we might see creation of biographies with the intent to use Wikipedia for Twitter verification purposes. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
“It’s a form of Twitter offloading its work to us and expecting us to deal with it”sounds about right :/ And I do so love barrel-bottom-scraping-sourced celeb biographies... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A while back
Slashme,
Vexations,
Rosguill, and I got together and did some patrolling together. This let us talk about about approaches, share techniques, and otherwise engage in some great peer discussion. I think it was useful for those of us who were more experienced and Slashme definitely seemed to get a lot out of it as a newer reviewer. I'm wondering if there might be interest in doing something again on Saturday December 5 at 17001600 UTC (11 AM Eastern). We used Mattermost last time which worked alright. If we get a bigger crowd we might want to see if anyone has a licensed Zoom account to use so we could make do breakout rooms. If you're interested please sign-up below. When we get a little closer we can then start to work out logistics and details. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Ajpolino for offering to be the host of the Zoom room. The meeting ID is 968 5509 7448 and passcode is 676697 or you should be able to click on this link. You shouldn't need to formally register with Zoom in order to join (though you can get free accounts if you want). My thinking is that we'd divide into several small groups (3-5 people) for the actual exercise using breakout rooms. I plan to give a reminder ping to all who've expressed interest sometime on Thursday/Friday but welcome any other thoughts or ideas on how we structure this now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Courtesy reminder ping to those who have responded: @ Onel5969, Ajpolino, Gazal world, Slashme, Ainali, Mccapra, Vexations, Elmidae, Curb Safe Charmer, Alexandermcnabb, Scope creep, Rosguill, John B123, Eddie891, L235, Mcampany, and Alucard 16: Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hiya. So we're told a page creator shouldn't remove a CSD tag, but what do we do when they do? AfD? Also, just had the author of this one Asad Ali Palijo remove the speedy tag and then create a redirect while maintaining the page content. This appears to have subsequently marked the page as autopatrolled? Which is a glitch, right? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'd like as many eyes on this article as possible. No copyvio, but imo a definite POV issue. The funniest thing is that it's an article about the history of a town, and yet the town does not have its own article. It looks incredibly well-cited, but the vast majority of citations are not available online. I haven't looked at each title, but a cursory review of them didn't appear to contain the name of the town in any of them. Several of them did contain Ere, but none had Odo Ere. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other reviewers. One last thing, I did a search on those sources that are available online, and Odo Ere was not mentioned in any of them. Onel5969 TT me 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
This page was accepted as a redirect a few months ago, but it seems to have now reached enough notability to be a full article as it has increased in sources.
/info/en/?search=Verdis The only problem is, it is not indexing. Could it be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.255 ( talk) 09:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. While reviewing, I started an AfD for Margaret Keenan (Covid 19 Vaccine) because I found it should be made into a redirect. I later realised that another page on the same person already existed ( Margaret Keenan) and had already been turned into a redirect. Only then I realised that the page should be nominated for CSD under A10. Now, what is the right procedure: wait until the AfD is closed or is it permissible to also tag the page for CSD? Modussiccandi ( talk) 23:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 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.
It's that time of the year (or actually was about 2 weeks ago when the NPP user right had its anniversary): time to give out our Reviewer of the Year award. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by last year's recipient, Rosguill who patrolled the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 65,518 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 63,790 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 18,850 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 17,220 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,756 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,142 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,849 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,651 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Utopes ( talk) | 4,487 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,353 | Patrol Page Curation |
This year I am proposing that John B123 be named reviewer of the year. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue (down to around 3,000 articles) by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
I am also proposing that we give a special NPP Technical Achievement award to DannyS712. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition. I have used my very poor graphic design skills to make such an award but if anyone wants to do me better I would welcome it.
Proposed that we name John B123 reviewer of the year and give a special technical achievement award to DannyS712.
Thanks everybody, much apricated <insert long Oscar type speech here>. Congratulation to DannyS712 on his award for his bot that saves us all a lot of time. Regards -- John B123 ( talk) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As they say: it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. E Eng 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are several editors creating many articles on skyscrapers at the moment, most stubs with one or two references. Just to check I'm not missing anything, there is no inherent notability for skyscrapers and they need to pass GNG? Regards -- John B123 ( talk) 08:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, this is something that I'd like some eyes on. First, this place actually existed, but there are issues regarding the sourcing. The citations 7-10 are accessible online, and none of them refer to this as a kingdom, although #9 refers to it as a Sultanate, while the others refer to it as a province, a place with a governor (which would indicate not a kingdom), and a plain, although a plain with a ruler. There is also a question of the actual name, since all 4 of them refer to place as "Fetegar", rather than Fatager. In searching on Google Books, I can't find any information on the books listed, so there is no way to check them out. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Curious thing. In doing the rear of the queue, I've come upon a slew of articles relating to folks who have been awarded this Israeli honor. All appear to have been made by new editors, and all by different editors. Most are only sourced to yadvashem.org (the group who gives out the designation). With about 27,000 recipients, not sure if that is exclusive enough to automatically confer notability. A few, upon doing searches do get mentioned in other sources, and a couple even seem to have enough in-depth sourcing to pass GNG. But the coincidence and timing of these articles raises my suspicion hackles. I'm wondering if this is a single person using multiple accounts, or if this is a group of paid editors creating these articles to boost the visibility of the honor? Some of the articles are: Ludwig Wörl, Hardaga family, Henryk Rolirad, Peter Zürcher (who seemed to have enough coverage in various publications on Google Books), Robert Miastriau, Aldo Brunacci, Jonas Paulavičius (also appears to meet GNG). Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been seeing an increasing number of new pages that are largely forks of other pages with only a slightly different scope. Sometimes they're created because the author just didn't check to see if the page already existed and sometimes it's because they just wanted to create their own thing rather than collaborate. They are always a pain to deal with, since the author tends to put up a fight, but they're easier to deal with when nipped in the bud at NPP before the author has become too invested in them. Many reviewers seem to miss them, though, because if you don't know about the other page(s), the new page may look perfectly fine.
I'd like to hear from folks about what we might be able to do to stop these from slipping through the cracks. We could add something to the tutorial encouraging reviewers to check, but I think a more effective approach might be to add three related pages (using the same extension that adds them on mobile) to the info tab of the page curation tool. This would not only allow reviewers to see possible forks, but also to better familiarize themselves with the topic area by offering easy access to more established pages.
Forks are a massive problem for Wikipedia because they not only make navigation harder for readers but split editor energy, creating twice as much work. It's important that we clamp down on them, and I'm open to any ideas that could help with that. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
On List of Interior Ministers of Lebanon. Someone had the idea of copying a page from the Lebanese government website into wikitables, but then gave up, leaving the article mostly empty. Although there’s only one source, it’s authoritative, and a list of ministers is a good thing to have. Interestingly the article creator added a bunch of ministers from before 1943 (Lebanese independence) who don’t appear on the government website, without any source. I think the options are patrol and pass because the topic is clearly notable, tagging for more sources, or draftify because the sourcing isn’t sufficient, but I’m not sure which is best. Any views? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 07:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I’d appreciate other eyes on this. To me it reeks of promotion of a novel therapy. Created by new account Saluteossea (“bone health”). The technique clearly has been discussed in published papers but the exhaustive detail of the article looks like a veneer of scientific truthiness. Am I being paranoid? Mccapra ( talk) 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
My expertise is not in medical but in the engineering/ physics areas involved including 3D imaging/ image processing (including acoustic imaging) The article content has two main groups. Claims of good test results (which I did not evaluate) plus what appears to be a technical explanation on how it works. On the latter, despite appearances, there really is no technical explanation of how it works. Any real explanation has been left out. It probably should be an article, but needs to be whacked down to what independent sources have said. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
For others who have been tricked into researching a topic before noticing that the title used homographs to bypass watchlists and deletion logs, here's a script which higlights Cyrillic letters in titles: Highlight homographs in title.js.
Just this morning I came across two articles that used this trick (switching "a"s out with the Cyrillic letter а).
– Thjarkur (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I just came across to these two articles: Dial 100 (2021 film) and Draft:Phone Bhoot created by the same user. Dial 100 has been reviewed recently, and it seems OK to me. However the Draft:Phone Bhoot was declined. Both articles are written in the same pattern. Both articles have enough sources. Films which have commenced principal photography deserve their own article. Right? In this case what should be done? Phone Bhoot Deserves its own article? or Dial 100 should be nominated for deletion? -- Gazal world ( talk) 18:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Recently there have been a spate of plant/animal stubs coming through NPP. Most are simple approvals, but recently there have been a bunch which the sole source was International Plant Names Index, which I took as a reliable source, however, while reliable, there is an issue with it I didn't know about, see the end of this discussion. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for asking this here. I Don't know which is the right place for asking. Do we really need such one-line article? -- Gazal world ( talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or is the "e" in lawyer in the title highlighted in green? -- John B123 ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
An RfC on the Subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) wording has been started and might be of interest to New page Patrollers. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We've leveled off around the 1700-1900 articles level. But I was curious how many of those were old articles, and how many of them have been waiting a long time. As of this writing, there are only 26 articles in the queue over a month old, and most of those are articles created from redirects, etc. Nice job all of you who slog away at the back of the queue. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm reading through NPPS and I notice it says 500 suggested edits in one spot, and 1000 farther down the page. Do we have a consensus on which is better? If so, I'm happy to edit the numbers to agree with each other. Personally, I'd suggest 1000, since deletion policy is complicated. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have, somewhat unexpectedly even to myself, begun to make changes to the Tutorial. My goals are to update to reflect current practice (much of the focus were on items true prior to WP:ACPERM) while also reflecting NPP values more explicitly. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to point out that there's an editor doing yoeman's work on creating river articles, however, they are simply not supplying valid references to support all the information in the article. See this discussion on their talk page. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been studying NPP lately. The flowchart is fantastic--great job to whoever made it. I added some colors to it in case anybody is interested. [15] If you find it useful, let me know and I can upload it to Wikipedia in whatever format you prefer (png, svg, pdf). Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
From Wikipedia:New pages patrol#The purpose of reviewing new pages: When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again at Curation. In many cases the AfC reviewer has autopatrolled rights, so after moving articles from draft to mainspace they don't appear in the NewPagesFeed. This seems to defeat new articles getting a second check after passing AfC. -- John B123 ( talk) 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to prevent this from happening:
I was not aware this could happen, but this appears to have occurred with the page Tariq Mahmud Naim, it even shows up on Google. It doesn't appear to be possible to un-patrol your own creations.
– Thjarkur (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Great to see the number of articles waiting for patrol coming down so fast, but we still have some tough articles that have been sitting at the back of the queue since May. More eyes there would be very helpful. Mccapra ( talk) 17:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor take a look at the discussion Talk:Townships of China#Proposed merge of Similar to Township Units of China into Townships of China, and close it if you feel warranted? Thanks. Ping me if you do, and I'll take care of the merge. I'm tired of seeing this article in the queue. Onel5969 TT me 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hallo, Could we please revisit the wording of some of the standard messages left on user talk pages through the page curation system?
See
User talk:Citrivescence/Archive 2#I have sent you a note about a page you started 3 and
User talk:ნიკოლოზ_ზივზივაძე#Ways to improve Nabakevi Church for a couple of recent examples. Both include an invitation to leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|editorname}}
" . Both have the wording "And, don't forget to sign your reply ...
".
I suggest that the word "prepend" is beyond the vocabulary of most editors: could we just say "leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|editorname}}"? Even "prefix" would be less obscure. The fact that "prepend" includes "end" probably makes it even more confusing for people who don't know the word.
I was taught in primary school not to start a sentence with "And". Could we just say "Please remember to sign your reply..."? Pam D 07:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, very new reviewer here. Is there a quick way to run pages through Earwig's tool? I've just been opening the page on Toolforge each time I want to check something, which works OK but is a bit clunky. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 22:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've re-added White Lady (cocktail) to the page patrol list for a second opinion. I believe a merge and restoration of the former 13 year old redirect is necessary, a user has identified a different page as the target (and has got a little arsey over it) so I request a second opinion. Polyamorph ( talk) 02:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Two editors, Nina1009 and ნიკოლოზ ზივზივაძე, appear to be bulk-creating articles on churches (and other buildings) in Abkhazia. Most of these are stubs with only one reference, http://maps.nekeri.net/ , which is only enough to prove their existence and does not demonstrate notability?.
Should these be bulk-draftified? Can they be merged to a "Churches in Abkhazia" article? And with two editors, is there a coordinated effort to create these articles? If so, can it be informed about WP:Notability guidelines? power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Could some other reviewers please take a look at this article stuck in the queue? It seems to be massively-sourced rubbish, a mix of promotion, attack, trivia and incoherent nonsense. Above my pay grade, particularly on a Friday evening. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, there have recently(ish) been several creations of indoor arenas that are still under construction, with little more than a sentence (i.e. Eddie891's arena is a planned 15,000 seat arena to be built in Eddie891's town
). See for instance,
Sala Polivalentă (Timișoara). I think it makes sense to redirect them to
List_of_indoor_arenas_in_Europe#Arenas_under_construction, until there's more to say. Thoughts?
Eddie891
Talk
Work 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
It's my understanding that meeting WP:NSPORT's SNGs is sufficient to meet notability requirements. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 7 that is suggesting both the SNG and WP:GNG are required to be met. I don't know about everybody else, but I rely a lot on SNGs when reviewing articles. Anybody any thoughts on this? -- John B123 ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
For future reference:
-- John B123 ( talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. In reviewing the back of the queue, I came across a bunch of journal articles on June 29, like International Journal of Digital Earth, Journal of Spatial Science, and Geocarto International. I think this is fitting in light of the SNG/GNG directly above. As per WP:JOURNALCRIT, #1, "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies". Now, the word, "usually" sticks out to me. So, to me, when a journal has an extremely low impact factor (in my mind, it's less than 10), that factor alone does not make the journal qualify. Therefore, other factors need to exist to make it pass notability criteria. Most of these articles have only 1 or 2 citations, either primary sourcing, or a simple listing. I draftified two of them, since they both meet all 3 of the first criteria in draftify, but the article creator is a little bent out of shape by my actions, see Draft talk:Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society. Could use some input from other reviewers on this. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The issue with those articles is that they are stubs, not that they aren't notable and don't belong in mainspace. See also User_talk:Fgnievinski/Archive_2#Journal stubs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paid_editor_blocked_with_30,000_edits. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
most of them already have autopatrol) does make this harder to assess. I feel like I've personally rarely looked at an autopatrol request that's been made by an editor creating more than an article a month for any significant period of time, but it makes sense that there's plenty of old hands making good use of the perm. I like the 3rd-party nomination only idea, that should make it much harder for UPE, reduce the number of good-faith editors who want it for hat-collecting reasons (and who will be discouraged from editing when an admin says no), while still letting us exempt anyone who genuinely is creating tons of good articles that don't require review. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
“with great privilege comes great responsibility”- perhaps. Indeed, like DGG I used to regularly review the creations by Autopatrolled users, and as I said above, you can all see where it got me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
New reviewer here: should I pass this? It looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, is not a copyvio, and has already been been tagged with all the relevant tags. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out whether reviewing entails "it is an acceptable article" or just "it would not be deleted" speedily or at AfD. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Second, the article is a violation of WP:NOT CV, which is basic policy. and therefore makes all considerations of notability irrelevant. This can be fixed in some cases, and fortunately, this is one of them. . CVs list minor awards, and chapters in books, and memberships on editorial boards-- encyclopedia articles do not. Please observe the material I am removing in the next edits. There is usually from paid editors a third consideration, promotionalism , but this does not seem significant here--the article is reasonably objective. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone who is not involved, please take a look this merger discussion, it's been open for a couple of weeks, and if you feel there has been enough discussion, could you close it and ping me? I'll take care of the merge. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Can somebody give me a second opinion on Hardev Bahri. Whilst I think the subject is notable, I don't think notability is established on the page. Thanks. -- John B123 ( talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation.What material do you see in the article that's not supported by the references? It's a short article, if there's any at all, just tag that with an individual {{ citation needed}} tag, there's no need to decorate the top of the article with a big box message that only applies to a single sentence somewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about).(emphasis in original). – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Uanfala: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required to show notability ( WP:GNG). The article does not show this (especially as Bahri is not listed in later editions of Who's Who Of Indian Writers [4]). What tag would you suggest should be used to indicate this non-compliance with guidelines? -- John B123 ( talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Rosguill and DannyS712: I noticed that the applicable bot operator, DannyS712, is a template editor. Would it not make things simpler to lower the protection level to template protected? I do not think granting the small amount of editors (185) with the permission the ability to edit the list would be in any way problematic. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at List of Kuruluş: Osman characters? Limorina ( talk · contribs) seems incapable of waiting for an experienced reviewer to promote it from draft & has done so again despite my request to wait. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to find the source code for page curation as It is not a webwide feature for every language. Can I have the algorithm of the source code so that I can make some uses of it in other wikis? regards — A. Shohag ( pingme or Talk) 06:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Obvious WP:NPOL fail now, but given that she's the Democratic nominee for a Brooklyn seat in the New York State Assembly, it seems virtually guaranteed that she will pass WP:NPOL as of November 4, 2020. To pass as reviewed or not to pass? AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The docs seem to describe the tools and the process fairly well, but I haven't been able to find what review/approval actually does. I think it sets a flag to allow search engines to index the page. Is that right? And as a page creator, how can you tell if the page you started has been approved? Paulgush ( talk) 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. During recent weeks I've noticed a few articles being moved into draft space with the edit summary "segregate paid editing", or something similar. Was there a discussion somewhere about this? I couldn't find anything on the wp pages regarding paid editing. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi I often need to add the project banner for Military History to article talk pages. As I’m not very technical I just go to the project page each time, make a couple of clicks and then manually copy and paste the project banner onto the talk page. I wonder if anyone has a fiendishly clever shortcut I could use, like just typing a couple of characters and getting the full template without all the rigmarole? Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 12:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
. Best,
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
is not it, so I go back to the first suggestion.
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST}}
that I’m looking for, but specifically something that adds the full spectrum banner with all the options rather than just the short version.
Mccapra (
talk) 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:User:Mccapra/Mil}}
. That should work I reckon. Best,
Usedtobecool
☎️ 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Could somebody have a look at this article. I feel it is under-referenced but tagging as such is being resisted by the creator. Thanks. -- John B123 ( talk) 11:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Occasionally I come across an article by a banned/blocked user, as I am sure we all do. Sometimes, there is another editor who has done some work, sometimes significant work, on the article. When that happens, nothing to raise any alarms, but sometimes I come across two more articles by a banned/blocked user, and the same other editor has done work on them as well. This can raise an alarm of a potential sock. Going further, sometimes those socks are real easy to spot, but sometimes, those socks have been around for a while, and they are much more difficult to spot. Right now, there were a few articles by the banned user, ShakiraS12, which were also edited by user FanDePopLatino, such as Thalía (2013 album), Thalía (2013 album), and La Luz (Thalía and Myke Towers song). Now, this could just be an occurrence of simply being a fan of the same artist, but it could be something else. I hate making work for other editors, and I also hate making work for myself, so is there a tool that can be used to compare the edit history of two editors, to see if their is some commonality? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
wasnt able to use today to check a few articles (maybe it takes longer to load?)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Meisam Yousefi needs to go back to draft since notability is not established by the sources provided. It was copied to mainspace and there’s still a draft version of the article in draft space. Can someone please point me to the directions for how to deal with this? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Over the last three months or so, the backlog has been wrestled down by two thirds; most manifestly due to the efforts of Onel5969, Rosguill, and John B123. Big thanks all round, especially for not making Onel5969 slip back into the position of the sole finger plugged into the dyke! -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello guys! I was reviewing the articles and stumbled upon a case which is new to me - so I need your help. The article AssadUllah Shah is obviously not ready for the mainspace, but the subject looks notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I wanted to move it to drafts but there's already a draft of the same article written by another user. Can you help me - what should be done in such cases? None of the CSD seems applicable... Thank you, best, Less Unless ( talk) 12:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Autopatrol and global rollback. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72, pages and redirects created by global rollbackers in the main namespace will now automatically be unpatrolled (unless the user has local autopatrol or admin rights), meaning we will likely see a (probably small) rise of the number of pages in the queue. I encourage any reviewers who see global rollbackers creating redirects that can be patrolled uncontroversially to nominate them at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So this article had me flummoxed. I was about to move it to Draft and then thought I'd ask here. List of Classes of British ships of World War II is just a first line noting intent to create and an under construction template. I'd think a sandbox or Draftspace would be the place to undertake such a major project, rather than banging it line by line into Mainspace. Would you agree - draft? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, folks. So I nominate Macaloney's Caledonian Distillery for speedy deletion, dumping the yuletide message on the creator's talk page [6] - and then User:Deb bangs in a COI tag before User:John_B123 also nominates the thing for speedy. I thought User:Deb had nixed it, but it's still there. It strikes me we have been a bit Keystone Cops - lots of us pitching in to one page that was reviewed and then nominated for deletion, originally by li'l ole me, but which appears to have been multiply so - a waste of people's time, arguably. Could someone with more experience explain what happened here and how we can avoid this level of duplication of effort in future? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
When a redirect is patrolled, and then the target changes, it is currently not added back to the queue. I propose that it should be (and will write the code) - thoughts? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Hola. Nominated this one Cardiac Trials for Speedy G11, creator removed the tag. Creator then seems to have remade the page Cardiac trials, presumably to clean the history, so nominated that, too. Struck me as a bit naughty? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I’ve sometimes thought it would be useful to have a tool that allowed me to compare my actions with those of other reviewers. There must be average outcomes for NPP articles and it would be useful to me to know if I draftify a lot more articles than the average. I have an idea that I request speedy deletion less than a lot of other reviewers but I don’t really know. We’re all kind of flying blind which makes it easy to drift into bad habits. I’ve no idea whether my reviewing approach is in line with others’ or not. Mccapra ( talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We've had at least 784 new articles moved to draft space so far in November. I have done a spot check and I see many actions that don't seem to meet the requirements listed in WP:DRAFTIFY. Is anyone else watching this? What do you see? ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I pulled out a dozen randomly from the category. My assessment is that only two of these ( Draft:María Elena nitrate works, Draft:Rafael Delorme) appear to be accomplishing what we would hope from WP:DRAFTIFY.
Many reviewers are using the default MoveToDraft edit comment (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace) to justify the move to draft space. In most cases this does not apply to the move in question. Even if it did accurately describe the issue, this justification doesn't match up well with WP:DRAFTIFY criteria.
In many cases WP:DRAFTIFY appears to be used as a last resort for marginal and complicated cases. It seems likely that many of these will be WP:G13d in 6 months serving as a backdoor route to deletion which is very specifically not what it is intended for. ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft | NPP edit comment | Merit (#1) | Serious problems (#2) | Not being improved (#3) | No COI (#4) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | No | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unnotable song |
Draft:Emma Corrin | incubate in draft, a red link is better than such a useless redirect | Yes | Yes | No, draftified 1 day after creation | Yes | Notable actress |
Draft:Positioning theory | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Possible WP:NEOLOGISM |
Draft:María Elena nitrate works | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | Maybe, draftified 7 days after creation | Yes | 9 references have been added. Waiting for AfC review. |
Draft:Kambainallur estate | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unsourced stub. May meet WP:GEOLAND, otherwise merge to Kambainallur |
Draft:Lucca Allen 2 | article already exists in draftspace, incubate in draftspace, and merge the two. | Yes | No | Maybe, draftified 24 days after last improvement by original author | Yes | Draft:Lucca Allen 2 and Draft:Lucca Allen are substantially the same; we don't need both. |
Draft:Expo 2027 | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | No | Yes | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Unsourced stub. Likely WP:TOOSOON. |
Draft:Luke McGarry | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Giant plate of puff. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. | Yes | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 10 days after last significant improvement | No, 2 McGarry-related WP:SPAs | Has 83 refs |
Draft:Rafael Delorme | Segregate UPE | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | WP:DRAFTIFY #4 |
Draft:Sietske Hoekstra | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Maybe | No, draftified same day as creation | Yes | Has 5 refs. Appears to meet WP:GNG, potential WP:BLP1E problem. |
Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium | Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield County Infirmary | Maybe | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 8 days after creation | Maybe, an accusation of "gaming the system" | No blanket consensus at this deletion discussion. How is moving to draft a good solution for this complex issue? |
Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition | Undersourced, incubate in draftspace | Yes | Maybe | Maybe, draftified 1 month after creation | Yes | Has 6 refs. Broadcast on GMA Network (company), may meet WP:NTV. |
Well if you look at the two presumed RIS (refs 2 and 6), ref 2 doesn’t mention the topic at all (it’s about events five years before the topic of the article came into existence) and ref 6 is essentially a press release from the owners of the tv station saying “there’s going to be a new tv station and here is our lineup of announcers”. So the article relies entirely on self-published sources (social media and a press release), with real news only being used to support the tangential detail of what happened to a predecessor station. I imagine that the likely outcome of an AfD discussion would be ‘draftify’. Mccapra ( talk) 04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I added some columns to my table above try and understand why my assessments were so far away from others here. I'm not sure how much that helped. It did, however, highlight an issue with
WP:DRAFTIFY criteria #3. Many of these were draftified on the same day or the day after they were created. I don't see how one can argue that there is no evidence of active improvement
at such an early stage. ~
Kvng (
talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
the article does not meet the required standardis trying to say. Maybe it should just say,
the article is likely to be deleted. ~ Kvng ( talk) 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to see a FAQ, or some best practices recommendations added somewhere, for those of us who got here by the side door, trying to determine the best procedure in a given case. My path here was after draftifying
A Nation on Trial based on the fact that it's been an unreferenced stub for eight years, but other approaches are possible. After
notifying the creator (who remains only intermittently active), I considered whether to Afd it, place a {{
merge to}}
template, or add the Draft to
WP:AFC. I ended up here, after noticing the {{
Drafts moved from mainspace}} template added to the Draft by a bot, and saw this highly related section title.
In general, while the documentation at individual guideline, how-to, info, and help pages is good, such as at WP:AFD, WP:MERGE, WP:AFC, WP:MOVE, WP:DRAFTS, WP:NPP, Template:Unreferenced, and so on, they are targeted at individual processes (i.e. the solution), rather than at how to determine which path to take (i.e., the question, and analysis of it). I'm not exactly sure of the solution—a FAQ, maybe?—but it seems like there should be better attention paid in our documentation generally to specific use cases faced by users (e.g., "What do I do with this long-term unreferenced stub?"), and then a paragraph or two of the possible avenues available to address it, and in particular, how to choose among them, given the characteristics of the individual case. The editor can then proceed from the question, to a list of options for possible resolution, to whatever the best procedure seems to be.
In this individual example of A Nation on Trial, I'd still like to know whether Draftifying was a good idea, but it's not obvious how to make that call, other than relying on general experience and knowledge of how things go around here. But I'm more interested in addressing the general case, of which that is merely an example. Without necessarily having to lay it out as a guideline (I'm not interested in instruction creep), we ought to be able to get people to the right guideline more efficiently, given a particular issue they are facing. Mathglot ( talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion over at WT:TV that maybe of interest to NPP regarding TV shows that have an individual article for most or all episodes and if they meet WP:GNG. The editor that started the discussion filed three batch AFDs regarding episodes of the current season of The Simpsons, various episodes from Game of Thrones and most of The Walking Dead episode articles. In the case of The Simpsons every episode was reviewed by someone here at NPP. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I keep wondering about the two big numbers that define the backlog. The total number of new pages entering the backlog (e.g per day or week) and the number of reviews being completed (e.g. per day or week) Are these numbers available somewhere? Would it be good / feasible to show them here? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This article may be of interest to New Page Patrollers as we might see creation of biographies with the intent to use Wikipedia for Twitter verification purposes. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
“It’s a form of Twitter offloading its work to us and expecting us to deal with it”sounds about right :/ And I do so love barrel-bottom-scraping-sourced celeb biographies... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A while back
Slashme,
Vexations,
Rosguill, and I got together and did some patrolling together. This let us talk about about approaches, share techniques, and otherwise engage in some great peer discussion. I think it was useful for those of us who were more experienced and Slashme definitely seemed to get a lot out of it as a newer reviewer. I'm wondering if there might be interest in doing something again on Saturday December 5 at 17001600 UTC (11 AM Eastern). We used Mattermost last time which worked alright. If we get a bigger crowd we might want to see if anyone has a licensed Zoom account to use so we could make do breakout rooms. If you're interested please sign-up below. When we get a little closer we can then start to work out logistics and details. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to Ajpolino for offering to be the host of the Zoom room. The meeting ID is 968 5509 7448 and passcode is 676697 or you should be able to click on this link. You shouldn't need to formally register with Zoom in order to join (though you can get free accounts if you want). My thinking is that we'd divide into several small groups (3-5 people) for the actual exercise using breakout rooms. I plan to give a reminder ping to all who've expressed interest sometime on Thursday/Friday but welcome any other thoughts or ideas on how we structure this now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Courtesy reminder ping to those who have responded: @ Onel5969, Ajpolino, Gazal world, Slashme, Ainali, Mccapra, Vexations, Elmidae, Curb Safe Charmer, Alexandermcnabb, Scope creep, Rosguill, John B123, Eddie891, L235, Mcampany, and Alucard 16: Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hiya. So we're told a page creator shouldn't remove a CSD tag, but what do we do when they do? AfD? Also, just had the author of this one Asad Ali Palijo remove the speedy tag and then create a redirect while maintaining the page content. This appears to have subsequently marked the page as autopatrolled? Which is a glitch, right? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'd like as many eyes on this article as possible. No copyvio, but imo a definite POV issue. The funniest thing is that it's an article about the history of a town, and yet the town does not have its own article. It looks incredibly well-cited, but the vast majority of citations are not available online. I haven't looked at each title, but a cursory review of them didn't appear to contain the name of the town in any of them. Several of them did contain Ere, but none had Odo Ere. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other reviewers. One last thing, I did a search on those sources that are available online, and Odo Ere was not mentioned in any of them. Onel5969 TT me 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
This page was accepted as a redirect a few months ago, but it seems to have now reached enough notability to be a full article as it has increased in sources.
/info/en/?search=Verdis The only problem is, it is not indexing. Could it be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.255 ( talk) 09:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. While reviewing, I started an AfD for Margaret Keenan (Covid 19 Vaccine) because I found it should be made into a redirect. I later realised that another page on the same person already existed ( Margaret Keenan) and had already been turned into a redirect. Only then I realised that the page should be nominated for CSD under A10. Now, what is the right procedure: wait until the AfD is closed or is it permissible to also tag the page for CSD? Modussiccandi ( talk) 23:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 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.
It's that time of the year (or actually was about 2 weeks ago when the NPP user right had its anniversary): time to give out our Reviewer of the Year award. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by last year's recipient, Rosguill who patrolled the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rosguill ( talk) | 65,518 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 63,790 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 18,850 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 17,220 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,756 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,142 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,849 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,651 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Utopes ( talk) | 4,487 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,353 | Patrol Page Curation |
This year I am proposing that John B123 be named reviewer of the year. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue (down to around 3,000 articles) by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
I am also proposing that we give a special NPP Technical Achievement award to DannyS712. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition. I have used my very poor graphic design skills to make such an award but if anyone wants to do me better I would welcome it.
Proposed that we name John B123 reviewer of the year and give a special technical achievement award to DannyS712.
Thanks everybody, much apricated <insert long Oscar type speech here>. Congratulation to DannyS712 on his award for his bot that saves us all a lot of time. Regards -- John B123 ( talk) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As they say: it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. E Eng 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are several editors creating many articles on skyscrapers at the moment, most stubs with one or two references. Just to check I'm not missing anything, there is no inherent notability for skyscrapers and they need to pass GNG? Regards -- John B123 ( talk) 08:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, this is something that I'd like some eyes on. First, this place actually existed, but there are issues regarding the sourcing. The citations 7-10 are accessible online, and none of them refer to this as a kingdom, although #9 refers to it as a Sultanate, while the others refer to it as a province, a place with a governor (which would indicate not a kingdom), and a plain, although a plain with a ruler. There is also a question of the actual name, since all 4 of them refer to place as "Fetegar", rather than Fatager. In searching on Google Books, I can't find any information on the books listed, so there is no way to check them out. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Curious thing. In doing the rear of the queue, I've come upon a slew of articles relating to folks who have been awarded this Israeli honor. All appear to have been made by new editors, and all by different editors. Most are only sourced to yadvashem.org (the group who gives out the designation). With about 27,000 recipients, not sure if that is exclusive enough to automatically confer notability. A few, upon doing searches do get mentioned in other sources, and a couple even seem to have enough in-depth sourcing to pass GNG. But the coincidence and timing of these articles raises my suspicion hackles. I'm wondering if this is a single person using multiple accounts, or if this is a group of paid editors creating these articles to boost the visibility of the honor? Some of the articles are: Ludwig Wörl, Hardaga family, Henryk Rolirad, Peter Zürcher (who seemed to have enough coverage in various publications on Google Books), Robert Miastriau, Aldo Brunacci, Jonas Paulavičius (also appears to meet GNG). Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been seeing an increasing number of new pages that are largely forks of other pages with only a slightly different scope. Sometimes they're created because the author just didn't check to see if the page already existed and sometimes it's because they just wanted to create their own thing rather than collaborate. They are always a pain to deal with, since the author tends to put up a fight, but they're easier to deal with when nipped in the bud at NPP before the author has become too invested in them. Many reviewers seem to miss them, though, because if you don't know about the other page(s), the new page may look perfectly fine.
I'd like to hear from folks about what we might be able to do to stop these from slipping through the cracks. We could add something to the tutorial encouraging reviewers to check, but I think a more effective approach might be to add three related pages (using the same extension that adds them on mobile) to the info tab of the page curation tool. This would not only allow reviewers to see possible forks, but also to better familiarize themselves with the topic area by offering easy access to more established pages.
Forks are a massive problem for Wikipedia because they not only make navigation harder for readers but split editor energy, creating twice as much work. It's important that we clamp down on them, and I'm open to any ideas that could help with that. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
On List of Interior Ministers of Lebanon. Someone had the idea of copying a page from the Lebanese government website into wikitables, but then gave up, leaving the article mostly empty. Although there’s only one source, it’s authoritative, and a list of ministers is a good thing to have. Interestingly the article creator added a bunch of ministers from before 1943 (Lebanese independence) who don’t appear on the government website, without any source. I think the options are patrol and pass because the topic is clearly notable, tagging for more sources, or draftify because the sourcing isn’t sufficient, but I’m not sure which is best. Any views? Thanks Mccapra ( talk) 07:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I’d appreciate other eyes on this. To me it reeks of promotion of a novel therapy. Created by new account Saluteossea (“bone health”). The technique clearly has been discussed in published papers but the exhaustive detail of the article looks like a veneer of scientific truthiness. Am I being paranoid? Mccapra ( talk) 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
My expertise is not in medical but in the engineering/ physics areas involved including 3D imaging/ image processing (including acoustic imaging) The article content has two main groups. Claims of good test results (which I did not evaluate) plus what appears to be a technical explanation on how it works. On the latter, despite appearances, there really is no technical explanation of how it works. Any real explanation has been left out. It probably should be an article, but needs to be whacked down to what independent sources have said. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
For others who have been tricked into researching a topic before noticing that the title used homographs to bypass watchlists and deletion logs, here's a script which higlights Cyrillic letters in titles: Highlight homographs in title.js.
Just this morning I came across two articles that used this trick (switching "a"s out with the Cyrillic letter а).
– Thjarkur (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I just came across to these two articles: Dial 100 (2021 film) and Draft:Phone Bhoot created by the same user. Dial 100 has been reviewed recently, and it seems OK to me. However the Draft:Phone Bhoot was declined. Both articles are written in the same pattern. Both articles have enough sources. Films which have commenced principal photography deserve their own article. Right? In this case what should be done? Phone Bhoot Deserves its own article? or Dial 100 should be nominated for deletion? -- Gazal world ( talk) 18:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Recently there have been a spate of plant/animal stubs coming through NPP. Most are simple approvals, but recently there have been a bunch which the sole source was International Plant Names Index, which I took as a reliable source, however, while reliable, there is an issue with it I didn't know about, see the end of this discussion. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for asking this here. I Don't know which is the right place for asking. Do we really need such one-line article? -- Gazal world ( talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or is the "e" in lawyer in the title highlighted in green? -- John B123 ( talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
An RfC on the Subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) wording has been started and might be of interest to New page Patrollers. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We've leveled off around the 1700-1900 articles level. But I was curious how many of those were old articles, and how many of them have been waiting a long time. As of this writing, there are only 26 articles in the queue over a month old, and most of those are articles created from redirects, etc. Nice job all of you who slog away at the back of the queue. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm reading through NPPS and I notice it says 500 suggested edits in one spot, and 1000 farther down the page. Do we have a consensus on which is better? If so, I'm happy to edit the numbers to agree with each other. Personally, I'd suggest 1000, since deletion policy is complicated. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have, somewhat unexpectedly even to myself, begun to make changes to the Tutorial. My goals are to update to reflect current practice (much of the focus were on items true prior to WP:ACPERM) while also reflecting NPP values more explicitly. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to point out that there's an editor doing yoeman's work on creating river articles, however, they are simply not supplying valid references to support all the information in the article. See this discussion on their talk page. Onel5969 TT me 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I've been studying NPP lately. The flowchart is fantastic--great job to whoever made it. I added some colors to it in case anybody is interested. [15] If you find it useful, let me know and I can upload it to Wikipedia in whatever format you prefer (png, svg, pdf). Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)