![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
If you didn't notice or have been living under a rock, there is a 5000 article backlog and 5000 redirect backlog, making 10000 total pages, if all 717 reviewers and 3 admins patrolled around 14 pages/redirects , poof, backlog is gone. I recommend using the {{NPP dashboard}}
template as it provides useful backlog information. Make it happen NPP!
Zippybonzo |
Talk (he|him)
06:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Can I use AWB to remove {{one source}} tag from the articles that have this issue fixed? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (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.
Hi! I think that the second and third paragrpahs of the redirect autopatrol guidelines is overly bureaucratic, considering that requesting normal autopatrol itself doesn't even have any similar requirements. The guidelines also don't reflect the current de facto status; the vast majority of requests are granted without 3 NPPs endorsing. I propose that:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed. Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights.
Closed requests will be archived to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list/Old requests after a minimum of three calendar days following the close of the discussion.
be changed to:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
Administrators will consider endorsement from new page reviewers as part of their decision on whether to add a contributor to the list.
There's no need to mention archives as it's already included in the box on the right.
Thoughts? Frostly ( talk) 00:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I have recently received NPP rights. As a newcomer, I have a query. If I, as an NPP reviewer, suggest a CSD nomination for an article and it is declined, am I permitted to nominate it for AfD, or should I leave and let another NPP editor to handle it? RPSkokie ( talk) 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
hi y'all – ~3 months ago, some of us talked about the design of a new project (Edit Check) the Editing Team is working on that will prompt people adding new content to add a reference when they don't do so on their own.
We now have a prototype of the mobile experience ready and we need some help.
Specifically, we need help identifying aspects of the experience that might need to be fixed and/or improved before being enabled in production as a beta feature at en.wiki.
I'm going to add instructions for trying and sharing feedback about the mobile prototype for below.
Of course, if you find anything about the instructions below confusing/unclear, please comment here so that I can try to help. PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
1) How is this implemented? Did you make a new extension?
2) Any plans to add this to desktop's visual editor in the future?
3) Under what circumstances will the citation alert be activated? I don't imagine experienced editors need to see this. So maybe non-extendedconfirmed?
#editcheck-references
tag. See:
Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&tagfilter=editcheck-references.I like your video demo. Nice work.
Right now, I believe this is implemented within the VisualEditor extension. Although, @ESanders (WMF) is best equipped to answer this question.
I've never seen this. I'm pretty good at citing my sources, though, so it could be I've never run into the situation.
I imagine most experienced editors cite their sources without even thinking.leads me to think this thinking aligns with what you expect. Although, if this is not the case, I'd value knowing!
hi y'all – this Friday, 14 July (15:30 to 17:00 UTC) the Editing Team would like to invite you to a virtual meeting about Edit Check.
We're planning to use this time to:
We'll also hold space for general Q&A about anything related to the visual editor and/or DiscussionTools.
If the above brings any questions to your mind, please ping me so that I can try to answer. In the meantime, this MediaWiki page should contain all the information you need to join Friday's conversation. PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Experienced reviewers, how often do you use prod vs AFD? Like what percent of your patrols? Also, are there certain types of articles / certain topics where prod should be skipped because they are often de-prodded? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I used PROD a bunch of times a couple of weeks ago, deleting some very dodgy UAE article choices that had been made by a blocked editor. if the page creator wasn't allowed to dispute a PROD, I suspect it would be a great deal more useful. But I also suspect it would be viewed as unfair in some way. It's Mostly Harmless, as Douglas Adams would say... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Same as Rosguill, I rarely use it. They often end up going to AfD anyway. –– FormalDude (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This is something I'm sure I used to know, but what is the different between the reviews on the page curation log and the patrol log? I get that the former only covers actions done via the using the Page Curation toolbar at least. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Patrol versus review – There is a difference between an article being marked as patrolled (which uses the patrol log) and marked as reviewed (which uses the page curation log). Clicking
[Mark this page as patrolled]
, which appears in the bottom right corner of some pages, makes an entry in the patrol log only. Clicking the green check mark in your toolbar always creates an entry in the page curation log, and often creates an entry in the patrol log, but not always. Most people use the "mark as reviewed" button, so most people should be checking the page curation log exclusively. You can apply the "Reviewing" log filter if needed, which will filter out non-reviewing from the page curation log. The patrol log should usually be ignored.[Mark this page as patrolled]
appears when the Page Curation toolbar is closed (see next bullet), and in namespaces where PageTriage doesn't operate (for example, draftspace and template space).
Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for WP:NPPSCHOOL? It appears all the folks listed on the NPP school page have no slots available or are inactive. I heard a story today of someone who wanted to do NPP school not being able to find a teacher. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Am I going mad or did the 'Notability' tab disappear from the Page Curation Toolbar? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
As part of their work on PageTriage, the WMF's Moderator Tools team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. This week they upgraded the code that powers Special:NewPagesFeed. We've decided to do a beta test before we swap in the new code. Please consider helping us out by using this special link instead of Special:NewPagesFeed. The special link will allow you to access the beta test. Please post here about any bugs that you find, visual changes that you don't like, or any other feedback. Thank you very much for assisting with this. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have recently been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (earlier today). However, when I click "Review" from the New Pages Feed, the Curation toolbar does not appear. I have looked through the tutorial information and tried searching previous talk page messages but didn't see anything about this (though ADHD makes it difficult to sift through large amounts of information sometimes). Is the missing toolbar an error that needs to be resolved, or is it due to my new status (and thus, will resolve itself)? Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello NPP, I was wondering whether there is consensus for a combined backlog drive (both redirects and articles), as our backlog is massively growing, with over 13000 total pages. Me and some others from the discord server/cabal (circle preferred name) have proposed October, though other months are welcome. Courtesy pings for @ Buidhe and @ Illusion Flame as backlog drive coordinators, and @ Tol as our technical/bot person, and @ Novem Linguae as lead coordinator. Comments and suggestions welcome, this is just to determine rough consensus. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I Want to be new page reviewer. So what should I do earn it? MD Hydrogen 123 ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I had a couple of questions regarding NPP and how it operates (disclaimer: I very recently got the right temporarily, so I'm brand new to it). First, does NPP include AfC? Or is it completely separate? I was exclusively looking at that section thinking that it counts (I've been slightly active there since I got the patroller right), but I wanted some confirmation on it.
Second, Are NPP users able to review their own articles? Or is it exclusively for users who have Autopatrolled rights? As I'm writing this message, I have nine pages in NPP so I thought it would be a good idea to clear them from the backlog. If not, would any patrollers be willing to review my articles? Please let me know.
Again, I'm completely new to the process so just giving a heads up. I'll ask more questions as needed. Thanks in advance for a response. Losipov ( talk) 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened.This happened. I wrote the code for it :) So any NPP can now go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> tick Just Another Articles for Creation Helper Script -> Save, then use that to review AFC drafts. It's a different reviewing tool and a different log entry than NPP, although the criteria are similar.
I have a general question. On newly created articles, I'm used to seeing a link at the bottom of the page that says something about whether or not the article has been reviewed. But I just came across Mike Robinson (Environmentalist) which was just moved from Draft space and I don't see that it has been reviewed and that review link isn't present. Does this happen when articles are moved from Draft space to main space? Thanks for any answer you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I was wondering how long it takes to be part of the new page reviewer school? I was given an invitation on Saturday morning and I had a read of the tutorial, it is quite a long read but I got the gist of what the role entails. It suggested to go to the NPP school and I'm thinking attending, I meet the guidelines for this and I am keen to give it a go. Thanks, SarahTHunter ( talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
The article Hori7on remains unreviewed, and it showed that it was previously deleted before. However, the cite highlighter script shows that a majority of the sources used are good. I'm conflicted on how to best approach it. I was leaning towards marking it reviewed, but since I'm new to it, I thought I would ask more experienced reviewers on this.
Also, regarding AfC: I saw a draft article that seemed decent, but realized I made some edits to that page before (they were not fairly major, just things like changing the short description). Would that be improper to review that article given I made previous edits there? or is this fine?
Thanks in advance for a reply! Losipov ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
If I come across an article at NPP feed and make some minor edits, such as adding an infobox or tagging it to request more citations, am I required to mark the page as reviewed? RPSkokie ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone taken a look at the Clotting factors page? At present, the whole article is a table from a textbook. However, the textbook is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It's my gut instinct that a whole article should not be a literal copy-paste from a textbook, but I'm unsure how to handle it. Recommendations? Significa liberdade ( talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone! For context: The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used, which was not opposed by any editors in the discussion above.
In my opinion (and experience), there really is no place for PROD in NPP. Per
WP:PROD, proposing an article for deletion is only appropriate if no opposition to the deletion is expected
; that‘s not really a reasonable assumption for newly created pages. If an editor just recently put in the work to create an article (or publish it to the main namespace from their drafts), it is by no means reasonable to assume that they would not object to deletion. Accordingly, the PROD deletion mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with NPP, with only rare and narrow exceptions (such as old articles that have been added to the queue again for technical reasons). The documentation should reflect this; PROD should not be part of standard NPP workflows, and only described here as an outcome for the very rare cases where it may apply. I‘d like to hear as much input as possible on this. What does everyone think?
Actualcpscm (
talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit: BLPPROD is of course a different matter.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm new and don't know how often a page reviewing drive is held or under what circumstances, but it looks like it might be time for one. Everything is red across the board– 14K unreviewed redirects, and almost 8K articles, which is growing rapidly. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 16:09, 7 August 2023 (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.
Anyone noticed Koli caste-related mass articles and drafts creation by IPs and users? A similar SPI can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala.
Some Examples:
Creators:
𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes I encounter a new article which looks questionable as to notability, and think that it should be taken to AFD. I begin reviewing the references and developing a table listing which of the references are Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary. Then I conclude that the table shows that the article does satisfy the standards for general notability (or another notability guideline that is related to GNG). My question is: What should I do with the table analyzing the sources? I started the table with the intention to use it in an AFD, but I will not be writing an AFD if the table indicates that the article passes notability. Work has been done that should not be discarded. The one option that comes to my mind is to put the table on the talk page of the article. Does anyone have another thought? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
I made a new flowchart and added it to WP:NPP today. The flow is almost identical to the flow of the really detailed flowchart, except I reduced the amount of detail, put copyvio check before CSD, added several "draftify" cases, and recommended against PROD. Feel free to call out anything you think could use improvement. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
create an AFDto
create an AFD or WP:BLAR– Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to pose this concern, but I seem to have somehow lost access to the page patrol toolbar. I haven't been actively working on NPP the past few days, but I was looking over some new pages from Women in Red. I noticed the toolbar wasn't there but figured they page must be older or something. However, it appears to just be gone altogether.
I don't know if it's related, but I'm also getting the following pop-up error on some pages: "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Significa liberdade" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, you will need to manually remove it from your common.js or your skin.jspage. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!"
Any advice? Significa liberdade ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi - as you may know I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage (final update to be posted soon!), my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 10:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a truly bizarre request, but can someone mark Fireaway as unreviewed? It was initially created as a redirect by myself from a Afc/rc request, but the requesting IP immediately expanded it into an article which could use further review. I mark it as unreviewed myself since I'm the page creator, and the page curation toolbar thus doesn't appear for me. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I've started a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Give NPR additional rights? regarding a proposed change to the NPR userrights. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 08:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, can an admin grant reviewer to a very experienced editor who is already doing a load of review tasks anyway without a formal app at WP:PERM? [1]... or apply WP:5P5 if not ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:03, 1 September 2023 (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.
Hello, I want to see if you agree with my frustrations and think this new page reviewer is playing out-of-bounds. It's regarding the article Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio. I am not sure if I can opt-out of my articles being reviewed, but here I am as a veteran article creator being checked. The point is, Scope Creep calls my references "unintelligence to the average reader", "I can't make head nor tail of them", and "They don't resolve to anything", and that "They are non-RS". The user is threatening to draftify the article if these are not fixed within a week.
They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. That isn't a non-RS. NewsBank has refused my request to create URLs friendly to any reader worldwide, and I am still in the process of creating articles, passing through afterward with better citation formats. I think it's out-of-line for this reviewer to tag-bomb the article, recognize its experienced creator, and threaten draftification, all without first giving a common-courtesy request first, and without even stating these moves are 'part of their article reviewer duties'. Instead, it just comes off as another random attack against the work. As mentioned on their talk page, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. ɱ (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to. Unfortunately Scope Creep refuses to...That's unnecessarily antagonistic. Again, WP:STAYCOOL. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
"a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article." Which book? I can't find it in the article, but the dreadful refs make looking for it rather hard. Fram ( talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure why I am again the victim of a random attack from a new-page reviewer, out-of-process. As Novem Linguae stated, I am autopatrolled. And though, sure, my references aren't great, I don't understand why most every editor here is focusing and picking on my honest shortcomings, and not on this second aggressive attack on an article that clearly wasn't even in the new page feed. I would like these aggressions to stop, it's incredibly stressful, and incredibly uncalled-for. ɱ (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
ALL: I'm going to archive this thread. This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. I reached out describing what comes off to me as a hurtful attack, and instead of any slight degree of compassion or righting wrongs, everyone instead proceeds to over-examine my editing style, call my work "dreadful", "ridiculous", with a "lack of understanding", "dismissive", "superior-acting", "unwillingness", and more. I was very open to the fact that my ref work is substandard, but I do have a proven track record of going back to fix them, and especially when asked. If nobody likes my work here, I can just stop contributing. Your loss.
ɱ
(talk)
18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community.It really isn't. And archiving it would halt an in-progress discussion, which would probably be perceived a trying to avoid scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Ɱ, I would highly recommend in the future that you start out articles in draftspace/user sandbox, and then move to mainspace once it is ready, rather than creating it directly in main. I've found that quite useful and it allows me to take my time with writing prose and sourcing. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Ɱ, IMO an article should establish compliance with wp:not and wp:notability (including relevant references in a form that others can verify) and be coherent (even if just a stub) within dozens of minutes of being placed in mainspace. I tend to do it in draft space until it reaches that point and then develop everything else in mainspace after that which IMHO is OK.
The things that you describe (other than marking pages as unreviewed in 2022) is Fram acting as an editor rather than as a NPP'er. Might still be good to talk about here but that should be noted. On marking as unreviewed, that simply means that another set of eyes will have a look at it....not exactly a fate worse than death. I'm a NPP'er and any article I create needs to get reviewed by another NPP'er which is fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Fresh input is always welcome. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If you use the curation tool to RfD a redirect, it seems to produce this bug seen in
this diff, where instead of it placing the current redirect's target page link, it just places this text: [[:{{{target}}}]]
. This seems like a bug to me.
But also, I don’t like how the RfD tool works with the curation tool; how the edit summaries and messages to the creator use the word “deletion” rather than “discussion”. As for this particular example/diff, I personally proposed “disambiguation” rather than “deletion” which makes it confusing for other editors. I'll be sticking with Twinkle to RfD redirects I think for the foreseeable future. Fork99 ( talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd moved the article "Another Yeti Love Story" to draft after the New page review [4], mainly because I didn't think the sources used were valid, but others could possibly exist. I found one that might have worked, based on the list here [5]. The page creator(?, not sure) has removed the tags for draft and put the article back in mainspace without improvement... What do I do now? I didn't want to PROD it, as it seems borderline between deletion and draft. Do I add the draft tags again, or do we go to AfD? Oaktree b ( talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This book is
reliable but a textbook trivial mention, whereas
this is an obvious Wordpress blog per the bottom of the page that notes "Multipurpose News WordPress Theme 2023". The article also inaccurately claims that
this is a "review" despite it being an announcement column, with statements including |
A few days ago, User:Yellowsnowman123 created some pages for the annual Filmfare Awards dedicated to the film crew in the Marathi language film industry. These pages don't seem to have any unique or noteworthy content. The main articles for these awards already exist. I'd appreciate your opinion on whether we should redirect, merge, or delete these newly created pages. Below is a list of the unreviewed new pages and the main pages for reference. Thanks!
𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I came across Unicode Versions, and was going to draftify it as lacking sources, but couldn't as an exact duplicate, Draft:Unicode Versions exists. That draft has been decline many times, for obvious reasons. I don't know why User:AshtonTameirao did this; I hope it isn't an attempt to circumvent the AfC process.
Anyways, I PRODed Unicode Versions, but then decided it wasn't fit for mainspace at all. Ideally, it would be speedydeleted, but it fit none of the criteria, so I moved it Draft:Unicode Versions (duplicate). So now there are two identical drafts, both of which should probably be rejected.
As the header asked, did I do the right thing here? Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 12:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." WP:CSD. If the article was already eligible for a different CSD, just tag it with that without a WP:BLAR. But if R2 is the only reason, it should be declined with a revert. SilverLocust 💬 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note that the tutorial page is in the process of restructuring and simplification. If anyones has thoughts or disagreements on the changes made (I also made a few), thoughts and feedback are appreciated. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Recently, last months or so, I am receiving messages sent by the Page curation tool about "the article I created" or similar and then go to complain about the article. However, I didn't create the article. I created a redirect. A subsequent edit by another editor created the article. However, it seems the page curation tool simplistically blames the editor for the first entry in the History for "creating" the article, whether or not they did. Can the tool be made a bit smarter and contact the person who did create the article or ensure the people who are allowed to use the tool be educated to take responsibility for using the tool to contact the appropriate person. "Talking" to the wrong person isn't going to achieve anything very useful (just wastes their time trying to work out why they are being contacted) and possibly means that people that have should be advised instead (e.g. of deletion discussion) may not be advised as the relevant policies require. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 06:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I should probably post this at WT:NPPC but this page of course has more watchers. While signing up to the backlog drive I noticed an user signing up who is neither a NPR nor an admin. Should I boldly remove it or will NPP co-ordinators take care of these afterwards? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
My watchlist is showing the "new page is not patrolled" red exclamation mark next to three recently created Talk pages ( here, here, and here). In this case, I added the Talk pages (optional steps from NPP flowcharts) after marking the articles as reviewed. Did I get something out of sequence? -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 11:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
New page reviewers should make note of and consider participating in this VPR discussion on whether to change WP:GEOLAND. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
A question came up recently where a page patroller left a message for an author suggesting that an article was overly-reliant on sources behind a paywall and suggesting that it would be good to find additional sources which were "more accessible". The article was accepted, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for a patroller to leave such a comment. I don't want to make a big deal of this, so I'll skip naming the specific article and patroller, but I'm interested in what NPP policy says about this. It seems to me that if the sources are high quality (and in this case, they were), that's all we require. Suggesting to an author that the sources were somehow sub-standard because they were behind a paywall seems out of scope for NPP and contrary to WP:PAYWALL. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
<!--Template:Uw-paywalled-sources-discouraged -->
to identify the template. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->
RoySmith
(talk)
12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Keep in mind that you can often verify paywalled sources with The Wikipedia Library, WikiProject Resource Exchange, Internet Archive or 12ft. MarioGom ( talk) 07:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like to request that a section be added to the reviewing instructions on the tutorial page to link and summarize Wikipedia's policy on required attribution when copying or translating articles within Wikipedia. The fact that this is missing, is allowing patrollers to approve new pages lacking required attribution, which should never have been approved, as they are in violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia's licensing requirement.
This came to my attention when I noticed {{ Sentnote-NPF}} messages placed by NPP reviewers on the Talk pages of users who are creating new articles without the required attribution, for an article translated from a foreign Wikipedia, using messages like:
For an article with translated (or copied) content that lacks required attribution, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia's licensing requirement, which is a policy with legal implications and can never be ignored, or overridden by consensus, and applies to all Wikipedias equally because it is part of Wikimedia's WP:Terms of use. There are a small group of editors who attempt to notify users about missing copy/translate attribution, and it's already hard enough to get editors to pay attention; when a user gets a glowing review on their UTP about their newly created article saying they "adhered to Wikipedia's policies", for an article where they ignored required attribution for the 17th time, it really undermines that effort.
I have in mind specific cases, such as one user who has three dozen newly created pages translated from Portuguese since the beginning of summer, with only one (non-compliant) attempt at translation attribution among them. There are about a dozen "sent you a note" templates from reviewers on this user's Talk page, of which about half mention article issues in need of attention, and the other half are either "Thank you!" messages, or they explicitly mention "adher[ing] to Wikipedia's policies". I'm not going to name either the users involved, or the reviewers who approved their edits because this isn't about pointing fingers at anyone. Also, there is good faith all around: the users are creating good articles, and the reviewers are doing what they think they're supposed to, based on the current reviewing guideline. Nevertheless, the required attribution is missing, and that has to stop. So, no names; rather, I'd like to concentrate on how we can mitigate the problem going forward. (If an admin or other editor with an interest in analyzing the scope of the problem needs specifics, they can email me privately.)
That's why I'm requesting that regulars here consider adding something to the reviewer guideline about checking for missing required attribution on articles with copied or translated content. You can get some ideas about how to approach it, by looking at how WP:AFC does it; see § Step 1: Quick-fail criteria at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Note, however, that their "Quick-fail criteria" don't even mention translated content (which they should), which has the identical requirements as copied content. I've been doing this kind of work for a long time, so if anyone wants to discuss basic "how-to", or practical tips (yes, you can patrol translations from languages you don't know), I'm happy to do so (perhaps better in a new section). Adding Diannaa. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
adhere to Wikipedia's policies. It's misleading and potentially disruptive for other quality control efforts. Mathglot, if you want to send me the examples you saw privately, I can look into it. – Joe ( talk) 15:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
So I nominate a page for Speedy and an admin does the poof cloud of smoke thing and then I find out later that it's been subject to deletion review. Which is all good process and that (and I'm not complaining about the outcome or anything like that) - but I didn't get a notification it went to DRV and it does strike me today, perhaps I'm just in a different mood to usual, that the nominator of an article should get a say in the deletion review. Or am I just barking up the wrong drainpipe? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
In the NPP film and television sorting lists, I came across two probably borderline Tamil-related articles both tagged regarding notability by different NPRs ( Rishi Rithvik and Kalakka Povathu Yaaru), see my thoughts collapse below:
Extended content
|
---|
All the refs for
Rishi Rithvik I can find fails GNG/NBASIC except this
possibly adequate source from The Hindu, though I can not determine due to its paywall. However, it might be arguably a weak passing of NACTOR (since two of the films listed in his filmography are main/starring roles that are possibly |
I would appreciate in second opinions. Also, if any reviewers with Tamil language or sourcing expertise can have a look that would be great. VickKiang (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm reviewing two related articles from the New Page Feed (
Georgia Institute of Technology - School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and
Georgia Tech Shenzhen), both of which have fairly high Earwig percentages (59.9% and 30.6% respectively). In this case, the text in question is mostly banal and generic (lists of names of buildings and their location, configuration, and function). My inclination is that this should be acceptable use as it would prove difficult to accurately describe these differently. Any guidance before I proceed would be welcome. --
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Another question regarding the same pair of articles: apart from two sources which I added to Georgia Tech Shenzhen, the sourcing is mostly from various pages on the University's own website. Would this merit a "Single source" tag in spite of the sources being from different pages on the same site? Also, am I correct in assuming that this is an these are articles we actually want (there is a cluster of related articles
here, so I'm thinking that this gets a "yes" – however I'd appreciate a more experienced reviewer's nod). I'm new to NPP and aiming to be precise, so please pardon my mundane questions. --
Cl3phact0 (
talk)
17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Taking a look at this oft-disputed draft, it does look like the page passes GNG with significant coverage. However the page is blocked from creation after an AFD in 2016. Can someone please review and verify if the page can be created, and if so remove the creation block? Cheers!-- Ortizesp ( talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I had tried to search both this page's archives and phabricator's history but I didn't see a mention so apologies if I missed it. But it appears that the the "(hist)" link of the new pages feed double encodes some types of characters, probably ones that are considered non-URL safe. For example, for
The Y'all Squad it generates the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Y%2527all_Squad&action=history which gives a "Bad title" error page; so it percent encoded the %
that was goes before 27
, since %27
is '
. Another example is
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Y%25C3%25BCksekda%25C4%259F&action=history for
Yüksekdağ where non-ASCII characters with diacritics are percent coded and then percent encoded again.
Thanks and let me know if it'd be better to report this like this at phabricator in the future. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Adds a new multiple issues template above a previously-inserted one. Sorry I keep finding these, I feel bad just reporting hordes of bugs and doing nothing to fix them. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
When I search in the tagging menu for "no footnotes" and select it – then click "add one selected tag", with the "sources" tab having a (1) after it – the tool adds two {{ no footnotes}} tags. Diff 1, Diff 2. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I should probably be reporting this at Phabricator, but I have no idea how to use it properly, so, until I do, here we are. The tool disobeys MOS:ORDER when adding deletion templates; in this edit, the tool added the template above the hatnote. Not major, but an annoyance that could use with a quick fix if possible. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to reply to what I thought was a very helpful reminder about the notability of WP:PROF and provide some more context for the humanities specifically. While I agree that h-index of twenty, as a very general guideline, is a useful metric for STEM academics, it is generally lower for the humanities. This is especially the case when one uses Scopus, where many non-STEM scholars have unusually low h-index counts (for example, Leo Steinberg and Linda Nochlin score 5 and 4 respectively). Looking at the citation count in Google Scholar can also be tricky, as humanities research is often simply not as robust, popular, and well-funded as science. It is not unusual for notable art historians, historians, literary scholars etc. to have a citation count for a single important source lower than 1000. Just something I wanted to point out. Ppt91 talk 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Popular unreviewed articles. It currently shows 50 articles, and refreshes hourly. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
A quick reminder that {{
one source}} (this article relies largely or entirely on a single source
) is a cleanup tag for articles that cite just one source, and that's a problem. Quoting from the template documentation:
A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. [...] Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality.
If the cited source is reliable, fully verifies the content in the article, and does not raise any potential issues of neutral point of view, it's not a problem. This is often the case with stubs or short articles on uncontroversial topics. Since the purpose of citations is to allow readers to verify the contents of an article, asking creators to add redundant additional citations is not going to improve it, and in some cases might damage it (by obscuring the actual source of information).
I've been seeing too many reviewers mechanistically tagging all articles that cite one source with this lately, so I thought it was worth a general reminder. – Joe ( talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hola. Tagging an article for unclear citation style, I find myself dumping a multiple issues tag on the page with the unclear citation repeated ( this here is the result) twice. I thought it was finger trouble and redid it but sure enough, the tool is dumping the citation tag twice and creating a multiple issues tag. I think it might be a bug, Sherlock... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
BTW, currently taking my own advice above ("Twinkle is your friend") and using Twinkle for tagging until this one's sorted out... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed As of 8:00 UTC today this bug should be fixed :) Thanks to
User:MPGuy2824 for testing the fix. --
Sohom (
talk)
13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to get some input from others about how to handle pages created for upcoming major events, such as the 2022 Asian Games. In preparation for the Games, users created a lot of articles, such as Water polo at the 2022 Asian Games, that do not meet notability guidelines and are largely empty. Understandably, these articles have been draftified, redirected, etc. because it is too soon to create the article. However, non-NPP users keep undoing these redirects or circumventing AfC because, obviously, the event will be notable.
As a newer NPPer, I'd love to hear others' advice on how to handle situations like this. I completely understand the perspective of the users who are thinking, "This is important!" but again, it's not useful to have basically blank pages or pages with a bunch of empty tables. This is a perfect use of drafts, but the users involved are often not utilizing or fighting against drafts. Especially as we're so close to having information, it just seems complicated. I'd love feedback. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, some time ago, I tried out NPF and added Filter to show Orphan articles. Finding a few articles with multiple Orphan tags, I did a little investigating. I know there is a time-lag delay from when the article is first tagged to browser refresh. More importantly, I can see how the tag itself can be confusing. What are thoughts of changing the tag? It could be: Add orphan (article missing tag & needs to be tagged); or Tagged orphan (article already tagged & needs de-orphan). So this will clarify the appropriate action. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering applying for a trial of the reviewer permission in time for the backlog drive. I wanted to ask if anyone had any suggestions for me as for what I should do or any helpful things to know before doing so. Thanks. Deauthorized. ( talk) 16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I recently used the Page Curation tool to send an article to AfD. When doing so, the Page Curation tool leaves a notice on the talk page of the editor to inform them of the pending AfD discussion. The notice (
example) contains the phrase Hello, [article creator's username], and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username [my username]
. This is perfectly fine for when articles created by newer individuals, but this
may come off as condescending when it's used on the talk page of more experienced users.
Is there a way for me to customize this message so that the bits targeted at new users only trigger for users who meet certain requirements (such as those users not yet having attained ECP), or would this require a change to software for it to work?
CC: Tataral
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello [example], I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [example article] for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the topfor G11). VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Novem Linguae: Is there still a way to change this, either by altering the on-wiki template or via Phab? Discussion in the ticket seems to have ended. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
How is the information that a page has been reviewed or unreviewed stored? Does it keep record of the history or is it just a record of current status? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Survey: Do you run Earwig copyvio check on every article you patrol? My impression is that this is mandatory, but an editor disagrees with me, so want to double check that my understanding is correct. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Running it on every article seems like overkill and a failure to assume good faith to me.I think your opinion is out of alignment with best practices and you should start running Earwig on every article you mark as reviewed, before you let through a bunch of copyright violations. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:36, 9 September 2023 (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 45 | ← | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
If you didn't notice or have been living under a rock, there is a 5000 article backlog and 5000 redirect backlog, making 10000 total pages, if all 717 reviewers and 3 admins patrolled around 14 pages/redirects , poof, backlog is gone. I recommend using the {{NPP dashboard}}
template as it provides useful backlog information. Make it happen NPP!
Zippybonzo |
Talk (he|him)
06:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Can I use AWB to remove {{one source}} tag from the articles that have this issue fixed? 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (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.
Hi! I think that the second and third paragrpahs of the redirect autopatrol guidelines is overly bureaucratic, considering that requesting normal autopatrol itself doesn't even have any similar requirements. The guidelines also don't reflect the current de facto status; the vast majority of requests are granted without 3 NPPs endorsing. I propose that:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed. Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights.
Closed requests will be archived to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list/Old requests after a minimum of three calendar days following the close of the discussion.
be changed to:
The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects.
Administrators will consider endorsement from new page reviewers as part of their decision on whether to add a contributor to the list.
There's no need to mention archives as it's already included in the box on the right.
Thoughts? Frostly ( talk) 00:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I have recently received NPP rights. As a newcomer, I have a query. If I, as an NPP reviewer, suggest a CSD nomination for an article and it is declined, am I permitted to nominate it for AfD, or should I leave and let another NPP editor to handle it? RPSkokie ( talk) 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
hi y'all – ~3 months ago, some of us talked about the design of a new project (Edit Check) the Editing Team is working on that will prompt people adding new content to add a reference when they don't do so on their own.
We now have a prototype of the mobile experience ready and we need some help.
Specifically, we need help identifying aspects of the experience that might need to be fixed and/or improved before being enabled in production as a beta feature at en.wiki.
I'm going to add instructions for trying and sharing feedback about the mobile prototype for below.
Of course, if you find anything about the instructions below confusing/unclear, please comment here so that I can try to help. PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
1) How is this implemented? Did you make a new extension?
2) Any plans to add this to desktop's visual editor in the future?
3) Under what circumstances will the citation alert be activated? I don't imagine experienced editors need to see this. So maybe non-extendedconfirmed?
#editcheck-references
tag. See:
Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&tagfilter=editcheck-references.I like your video demo. Nice work.
Right now, I believe this is implemented within the VisualEditor extension. Although, @ESanders (WMF) is best equipped to answer this question.
I've never seen this. I'm pretty good at citing my sources, though, so it could be I've never run into the situation.
I imagine most experienced editors cite their sources without even thinking.leads me to think this thinking aligns with what you expect. Although, if this is not the case, I'd value knowing!
hi y'all – this Friday, 14 July (15:30 to 17:00 UTC) the Editing Team would like to invite you to a virtual meeting about Edit Check.
We're planning to use this time to:
We'll also hold space for general Q&A about anything related to the visual editor and/or DiscussionTools.
If the above brings any questions to your mind, please ping me so that I can try to answer. In the meantime, this MediaWiki page should contain all the information you need to join Friday's conversation. PPelberg (WMF) ( talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Experienced reviewers, how often do you use prod vs AFD? Like what percent of your patrols? Also, are there certain types of articles / certain topics where prod should be skipped because they are often de-prodded? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I used PROD a bunch of times a couple of weeks ago, deleting some very dodgy UAE article choices that had been made by a blocked editor. if the page creator wasn't allowed to dispute a PROD, I suspect it would be a great deal more useful. But I also suspect it would be viewed as unfair in some way. It's Mostly Harmless, as Douglas Adams would say... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Same as Rosguill, I rarely use it. They often end up going to AfD anyway. –– FormalDude (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This is something I'm sure I used to know, but what is the different between the reviews on the page curation log and the patrol log? I get that the former only covers actions done via the using the Page Curation toolbar at least. Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
– Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Patrol versus review – There is a difference between an article being marked as patrolled (which uses the patrol log) and marked as reviewed (which uses the page curation log). Clicking
[Mark this page as patrolled]
, which appears in the bottom right corner of some pages, makes an entry in the patrol log only. Clicking the green check mark in your toolbar always creates an entry in the page curation log, and often creates an entry in the patrol log, but not always. Most people use the "mark as reviewed" button, so most people should be checking the page curation log exclusively. You can apply the "Reviewing" log filter if needed, which will filter out non-reviewing from the page curation log. The patrol log should usually be ignored.[Mark this page as patrolled]
appears when the Page Curation toolbar is closed (see next bullet), and in namespaces where PageTriage doesn't operate (for example, draftspace and template space).
Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for WP:NPPSCHOOL? It appears all the folks listed on the NPP school page have no slots available or are inactive. I heard a story today of someone who wanted to do NPP school not being able to find a teacher. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 15:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Am I going mad or did the 'Notability' tab disappear from the Page Curation Toolbar? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
As part of their work on PageTriage, the WMF's Moderator Tools team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. This week they upgraded the code that powers Special:NewPagesFeed. We've decided to do a beta test before we swap in the new code. Please consider helping us out by using this special link instead of Special:NewPagesFeed. The special link will allow you to access the beta test. Please post here about any bugs that you find, visual changes that you don't like, or any other feedback. Thank you very much for assisting with this. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have recently been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (earlier today). However, when I click "Review" from the New Pages Feed, the Curation toolbar does not appear. I have looked through the tutorial information and tried searching previous talk page messages but didn't see anything about this (though ADHD makes it difficult to sift through large amounts of information sometimes). Is the missing toolbar an error that needs to be resolved, or is it due to my new status (and thus, will resolve itself)? Significa liberdade ( talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello NPP, I was wondering whether there is consensus for a combined backlog drive (both redirects and articles), as our backlog is massively growing, with over 13000 total pages. Me and some others from the discord server/cabal (circle preferred name) have proposed October, though other months are welcome. Courtesy pings for @ Buidhe and @ Illusion Flame as backlog drive coordinators, and @ Tol as our technical/bot person, and @ Novem Linguae as lead coordinator. Comments and suggestions welcome, this is just to determine rough consensus. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I Want to be new page reviewer. So what should I do earn it? MD Hydrogen 123 ( talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I had a couple of questions regarding NPP and how it operates (disclaimer: I very recently got the right temporarily, so I'm brand new to it). First, does NPP include AfC? Or is it completely separate? I was exclusively looking at that section thinking that it counts (I've been slightly active there since I got the patroller right), but I wanted some confirmation on it.
Second, Are NPP users able to review their own articles? Or is it exclusively for users who have Autopatrolled rights? As I'm writing this message, I have nine pages in NPP so I thought it would be a good idea to clear them from the backlog. If not, would any patrollers be willing to review my articles? Please let me know.
Again, I'm completely new to the process so just giving a heads up. I'll ask more questions as needed. Thanks in advance for a response. Losipov ( talk) 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened.This happened. I wrote the code for it :) So any NPP can now go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> tick Just Another Articles for Creation Helper Script -> Save, then use that to review AFC drafts. It's a different reviewing tool and a different log entry than NPP, although the criteria are similar.
I have a general question. On newly created articles, I'm used to seeing a link at the bottom of the page that says something about whether or not the article has been reviewed. But I just came across Mike Robinson (Environmentalist) which was just moved from Draft space and I don't see that it has been reviewed and that review link isn't present. Does this happen when articles are moved from Draft space to main space? Thanks for any answer you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I was wondering how long it takes to be part of the new page reviewer school? I was given an invitation on Saturday morning and I had a read of the tutorial, it is quite a long read but I got the gist of what the role entails. It suggested to go to the NPP school and I'm thinking attending, I meet the guidelines for this and I am keen to give it a go. Thanks, SarahTHunter ( talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
The article Hori7on remains unreviewed, and it showed that it was previously deleted before. However, the cite highlighter script shows that a majority of the sources used are good. I'm conflicted on how to best approach it. I was leaning towards marking it reviewed, but since I'm new to it, I thought I would ask more experienced reviewers on this.
Also, regarding AfC: I saw a draft article that seemed decent, but realized I made some edits to that page before (they were not fairly major, just things like changing the short description). Would that be improper to review that article given I made previous edits there? or is this fine?
Thanks in advance for a reply! Losipov ( talk) 23:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
If I come across an article at NPP feed and make some minor edits, such as adding an infobox or tagging it to request more citations, am I required to mark the page as reviewed? RPSkokie ( talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone taken a look at the Clotting factors page? At present, the whole article is a table from a textbook. However, the textbook is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It's my gut instinct that a whole article should not be a literal copy-paste from a textbook, but I'm unsure how to handle it. Recommendations? Significa liberdade ( talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone! For context: The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used, which was not opposed by any editors in the discussion above.
In my opinion (and experience), there really is no place for PROD in NPP. Per
WP:PROD, proposing an article for deletion is only appropriate if no opposition to the deletion is expected
; that‘s not really a reasonable assumption for newly created pages. If an editor just recently put in the work to create an article (or publish it to the main namespace from their drafts), it is by no means reasonable to assume that they would not object to deletion. Accordingly, the PROD deletion mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with NPP, with only rare and narrow exceptions (such as old articles that have been added to the queue again for technical reasons). The documentation should reflect this; PROD should not be part of standard NPP workflows, and only described here as an outcome for the very rare cases where it may apply. I‘d like to hear as much input as possible on this. What does everyone think?
Actualcpscm (
talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit: BLPPROD is of course a different matter.
Actualcpscm (
talk)
20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm new and don't know how often a page reviewing drive is held or under what circumstances, but it looks like it might be time for one. Everything is red across the board– 14K unreviewed redirects, and almost 8K articles, which is growing rapidly. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 16:09, 7 August 2023 (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.
Anyone noticed Koli caste-related mass articles and drafts creation by IPs and users? A similar SPI can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala.
Some Examples:
Creators:
𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes I encounter a new article which looks questionable as to notability, and think that it should be taken to AFD. I begin reviewing the references and developing a table listing which of the references are Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary. Then I conclude that the table shows that the article does satisfy the standards for general notability (or another notability guideline that is related to GNG). My question is: What should I do with the table analyzing the sources? I started the table with the intention to use it in an AFD, but I will not be writing an AFD if the table indicates that the article passes notability. Work has been done that should not be discarded. The one option that comes to my mind is to put the table on the talk page of the article. Does anyone have another thought? Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
I made a new flowchart and added it to WP:NPP today. The flow is almost identical to the flow of the really detailed flowchart, except I reduced the amount of detail, put copyvio check before CSD, added several "draftify" cases, and recommended against PROD. Feel free to call out anything you think could use improvement. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
create an AFDto
create an AFD or WP:BLAR– Novem Linguae ( talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to pose this concern, but I seem to have somehow lost access to the page patrol toolbar. I haven't been actively working on NPP the past few days, but I was looking over some new pages from Women in Red. I noticed the toolbar wasn't there but figured they page must be older or something. However, it appears to just be gone altogether.
I don't know if it's related, but I'm also getting the following pop-up error on some pages: "AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Significa liberdade" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, you will need to manually remove it from your common.js or your skin.jspage. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!"
Any advice? Significa liberdade ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi - as you may know I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage (final update to be posted soon!), my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 10:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a truly bizarre request, but can someone mark Fireaway as unreviewed? It was initially created as a redirect by myself from a Afc/rc request, but the requesting IP immediately expanded it into an article which could use further review. I mark it as unreviewed myself since I'm the page creator, and the page curation toolbar thus doesn't appear for me. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 17:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I've started a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Give NPR additional rights? regarding a proposed change to the NPR userrights. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Primefac ( talk) 08:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, can an admin grant reviewer to a very experienced editor who is already doing a load of review tasks anyway without a formal app at WP:PERM? [1]... or apply WP:5P5 if not ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:03, 1 September 2023 (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.
Hello, I want to see if you agree with my frustrations and think this new page reviewer is playing out-of-bounds. It's regarding the article Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio. I am not sure if I can opt-out of my articles being reviewed, but here I am as a veteran article creator being checked. The point is, Scope Creep calls my references "unintelligence to the average reader", "I can't make head nor tail of them", and "They don't resolve to anything", and that "They are non-RS". The user is threatening to draftify the article if these are not fixed within a week.
They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. That isn't a non-RS. NewsBank has refused my request to create URLs friendly to any reader worldwide, and I am still in the process of creating articles, passing through afterward with better citation formats. I think it's out-of-line for this reviewer to tag-bomb the article, recognize its experienced creator, and threaten draftification, all without first giving a common-courtesy request first, and without even stating these moves are 'part of their article reviewer duties'. Instead, it just comes off as another random attack against the work. As mentioned on their talk page, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. ɱ (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I would be happy to. Unfortunately Scope Creep refuses to...That's unnecessarily antagonistic. Again, WP:STAYCOOL. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
"a book all about the fire stations of Columbus (and actually multiple books exist on this) totally doesn't mean a list of fire stations merits an article." Which book? I can't find it in the article, but the dreadful refs make looking for it rather hard. Fram ( talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure why I am again the victim of a random attack from a new-page reviewer, out-of-process. As Novem Linguae stated, I am autopatrolled. And though, sure, my references aren't great, I don't understand why most every editor here is focusing and picking on my honest shortcomings, and not on this second aggressive attack on an article that clearly wasn't even in the new page feed. I would like these aggressions to stop, it's incredibly stressful, and incredibly uncalled-for. ɱ (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
ALL: I'm going to archive this thread. This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community. I reached out describing what comes off to me as a hurtful attack, and instead of any slight degree of compassion or righting wrongs, everyone instead proceeds to over-examine my editing style, call my work "dreadful", "ridiculous", with a "lack of understanding", "dismissive", "superior-acting", "unwillingness", and more. I was very open to the fact that my ref work is substandard, but I do have a proven track record of going back to fix them, and especially when asked. If nobody likes my work here, I can just stop contributing. Your loss.
ɱ
(talk)
18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a textbook example of the toxicity of the Wikipedia community.It really isn't. And archiving it would halt an in-progress discussion, which would probably be perceived a trying to avoid scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 22:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Ɱ, I would highly recommend in the future that you start out articles in draftspace/user sandbox, and then move to mainspace once it is ready, rather than creating it directly in main. I've found that quite useful and it allows me to take my time with writing prose and sourcing. Curbon7 ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Ɱ, IMO an article should establish compliance with wp:not and wp:notability (including relevant references in a form that others can verify) and be coherent (even if just a stub) within dozens of minutes of being placed in mainspace. I tend to do it in draft space until it reaches that point and then develop everything else in mainspace after that which IMHO is OK.
The things that you describe (other than marking pages as unreviewed in 2022) is Fram acting as an editor rather than as a NPP'er. Might still be good to talk about here but that should be noted. On marking as unreviewed, that simply means that another set of eyes will have a look at it....not exactly a fate worse than death. I'm a NPP'er and any article I create needs to get reviewed by another NPP'er which is fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Fresh input is always welcome. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If you use the curation tool to RfD a redirect, it seems to produce this bug seen in
this diff, where instead of it placing the current redirect's target page link, it just places this text: [[:{{{target}}}]]
. This seems like a bug to me.
But also, I don’t like how the RfD tool works with the curation tool; how the edit summaries and messages to the creator use the word “deletion” rather than “discussion”. As for this particular example/diff, I personally proposed “disambiguation” rather than “deletion” which makes it confusing for other editors. I'll be sticking with Twinkle to RfD redirects I think for the foreseeable future. Fork99 ( talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd moved the article "Another Yeti Love Story" to draft after the New page review [4], mainly because I didn't think the sources used were valid, but others could possibly exist. I found one that might have worked, based on the list here [5]. The page creator(?, not sure) has removed the tags for draft and put the article back in mainspace without improvement... What do I do now? I didn't want to PROD it, as it seems borderline between deletion and draft. Do I add the draft tags again, or do we go to AfD? Oaktree b ( talk) 15:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
This book is
reliable but a textbook trivial mention, whereas
this is an obvious Wordpress blog per the bottom of the page that notes "Multipurpose News WordPress Theme 2023". The article also inaccurately claims that
this is a "review" despite it being an announcement column, with statements including |
A few days ago, User:Yellowsnowman123 created some pages for the annual Filmfare Awards dedicated to the film crew in the Marathi language film industry. These pages don't seem to have any unique or noteworthy content. The main articles for these awards already exist. I'd appreciate your opinion on whether we should redirect, merge, or delete these newly created pages. Below is a list of the unreviewed new pages and the main pages for reference. Thanks!
𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I came across Unicode Versions, and was going to draftify it as lacking sources, but couldn't as an exact duplicate, Draft:Unicode Versions exists. That draft has been decline many times, for obvious reasons. I don't know why User:AshtonTameirao did this; I hope it isn't an attempt to circumvent the AfC process.
Anyways, I PRODed Unicode Versions, but then decided it wasn't fit for mainspace at all. Ideally, it would be speedydeleted, but it fit none of the criteria, so I moved it Draft:Unicode Versions (duplicate). So now there are two identical drafts, both of which should probably be rejected.
As the header asked, did I do the right thing here? Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 12:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." WP:CSD. If the article was already eligible for a different CSD, just tag it with that without a WP:BLAR. But if R2 is the only reason, it should be declined with a revert. SilverLocust 💬 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Just a courtesy note that the tutorial page is in the process of restructuring and simplification. If anyones has thoughts or disagreements on the changes made (I also made a few), thoughts and feedback are appreciated. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Recently, last months or so, I am receiving messages sent by the Page curation tool about "the article I created" or similar and then go to complain about the article. However, I didn't create the article. I created a redirect. A subsequent edit by another editor created the article. However, it seems the page curation tool simplistically blames the editor for the first entry in the History for "creating" the article, whether or not they did. Can the tool be made a bit smarter and contact the person who did create the article or ensure the people who are allowed to use the tool be educated to take responsibility for using the tool to contact the appropriate person. "Talking" to the wrong person isn't going to achieve anything very useful (just wastes their time trying to work out why they are being contacted) and possibly means that people that have should be advised instead (e.g. of deletion discussion) may not be advised as the relevant policies require. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 06:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I should probably post this at WT:NPPC but this page of course has more watchers. While signing up to the backlog drive I noticed an user signing up who is neither a NPR nor an admin. Should I boldly remove it or will NPP co-ordinators take care of these afterwards? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
My watchlist is showing the "new page is not patrolled" red exclamation mark next to three recently created Talk pages ( here, here, and here). In this case, I added the Talk pages (optional steps from NPP flowcharts) after marking the articles as reviewed. Did I get something out of sequence? -- Cl3phact0 ( talk) 11:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
New page reviewers should make note of and consider participating in this VPR discussion on whether to change WP:GEOLAND. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
A question came up recently where a page patroller left a message for an author suggesting that an article was overly-reliant on sources behind a paywall and suggesting that it would be good to find additional sources which were "more accessible". The article was accepted, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for a patroller to leave such a comment. I don't want to make a big deal of this, so I'll skip naming the specific article and patroller, but I'm interested in what NPP policy says about this. It seems to me that if the sources are high quality (and in this case, they were), that's all we require. Suggesting to an author that the sources were somehow sub-standard because they were behind a paywall seems out of scope for NPP and contrary to WP:PAYWALL. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
<!--Template:Uw-paywalled-sources-discouraged -->
to identify the template. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
05:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->
RoySmith
(talk)
12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Keep in mind that you can often verify paywalled sources with The Wikipedia Library, WikiProject Resource Exchange, Internet Archive or 12ft. MarioGom ( talk) 07:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I would like to request that a section be added to the reviewing instructions on the tutorial page to link and summarize Wikipedia's policy on required attribution when copying or translating articles within Wikipedia. The fact that this is missing, is allowing patrollers to approve new pages lacking required attribution, which should never have been approved, as they are in violation of Wikipedia's Wikipedia's licensing requirement.
This came to my attention when I noticed {{ Sentnote-NPF}} messages placed by NPP reviewers on the Talk pages of users who are creating new articles without the required attribution, for an article translated from a foreign Wikipedia, using messages like:
For an article with translated (or copied) content that lacks required attribution, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia's licensing requirement, which is a policy with legal implications and can never be ignored, or overridden by consensus, and applies to all Wikipedias equally because it is part of Wikimedia's WP:Terms of use. There are a small group of editors who attempt to notify users about missing copy/translate attribution, and it's already hard enough to get editors to pay attention; when a user gets a glowing review on their UTP about their newly created article saying they "adhered to Wikipedia's policies", for an article where they ignored required attribution for the 17th time, it really undermines that effort.
I have in mind specific cases, such as one user who has three dozen newly created pages translated from Portuguese since the beginning of summer, with only one (non-compliant) attempt at translation attribution among them. There are about a dozen "sent you a note" templates from reviewers on this user's Talk page, of which about half mention article issues in need of attention, and the other half are either "Thank you!" messages, or they explicitly mention "adher[ing] to Wikipedia's policies". I'm not going to name either the users involved, or the reviewers who approved their edits because this isn't about pointing fingers at anyone. Also, there is good faith all around: the users are creating good articles, and the reviewers are doing what they think they're supposed to, based on the current reviewing guideline. Nevertheless, the required attribution is missing, and that has to stop. So, no names; rather, I'd like to concentrate on how we can mitigate the problem going forward. (If an admin or other editor with an interest in analyzing the scope of the problem needs specifics, they can email me privately.)
That's why I'm requesting that regulars here consider adding something to the reviewer guideline about checking for missing required attribution on articles with copied or translated content. You can get some ideas about how to approach it, by looking at how WP:AFC does it; see § Step 1: Quick-fail criteria at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Note, however, that their "Quick-fail criteria" don't even mention translated content (which they should), which has the identical requirements as copied content. I've been doing this kind of work for a long time, so if anyone wants to discuss basic "how-to", or practical tips (yes, you can patrol translations from languages you don't know), I'm happy to do so (perhaps better in a new section). Adding Diannaa. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
adhere to Wikipedia's policies. It's misleading and potentially disruptive for other quality control efforts. Mathglot, if you want to send me the examples you saw privately, I can look into it. – Joe ( talk) 15:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
So I nominate a page for Speedy and an admin does the poof cloud of smoke thing and then I find out later that it's been subject to deletion review. Which is all good process and that (and I'm not complaining about the outcome or anything like that) - but I didn't get a notification it went to DRV and it does strike me today, perhaps I'm just in a different mood to usual, that the nominator of an article should get a say in the deletion review. Or am I just barking up the wrong drainpipe? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
In the NPP film and television sorting lists, I came across two probably borderline Tamil-related articles both tagged regarding notability by different NPRs ( Rishi Rithvik and Kalakka Povathu Yaaru), see my thoughts collapse below:
Extended content
|
---|
All the refs for
Rishi Rithvik I can find fails GNG/NBASIC except this
possibly adequate source from The Hindu, though I can not determine due to its paywall. However, it might be arguably a weak passing of NACTOR (since two of the films listed in his filmography are main/starring roles that are possibly |
I would appreciate in second opinions. Also, if any reviewers with Tamil language or sourcing expertise can have a look that would be great. VickKiang (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm reviewing two related articles from the New Page Feed (
Georgia Institute of Technology - School of Electrical and Computer Engineering and
Georgia Tech Shenzhen), both of which have fairly high Earwig percentages (59.9% and 30.6% respectively). In this case, the text in question is mostly banal and generic (lists of names of buildings and their location, configuration, and function). My inclination is that this should be acceptable use as it would prove difficult to accurately describe these differently. Any guidance before I proceed would be welcome. --
Cl3phact0 (
talk) 06:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Another question regarding the same pair of articles: apart from two sources which I added to Georgia Tech Shenzhen, the sourcing is mostly from various pages on the University's own website. Would this merit a "Single source" tag in spite of the sources being from different pages on the same site? Also, am I correct in assuming that this is an these are articles we actually want (there is a cluster of related articles
here, so I'm thinking that this gets a "yes" – however I'd appreciate a more experienced reviewer's nod). I'm new to NPP and aiming to be precise, so please pardon my mundane questions. --
Cl3phact0 (
talk)
17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Taking a look at this oft-disputed draft, it does look like the page passes GNG with significant coverage. However the page is blocked from creation after an AFD in 2016. Can someone please review and verify if the page can be created, and if so remove the creation block? Cheers!-- Ortizesp ( talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I had tried to search both this page's archives and phabricator's history but I didn't see a mention so apologies if I missed it. But it appears that the the "(hist)" link of the new pages feed double encodes some types of characters, probably ones that are considered non-URL safe. For example, for
The Y'all Squad it generates the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Y%2527all_Squad&action=history which gives a "Bad title" error page; so it percent encoded the %
that was goes before 27
, since %27
is '
. Another example is
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Y%25C3%25BCksekda%25C4%259F&action=history for
Yüksekdağ where non-ASCII characters with diacritics are percent coded and then percent encoded again.
Thanks and let me know if it'd be better to report this like this at phabricator in the future. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Adds a new multiple issues template above a previously-inserted one. Sorry I keep finding these, I feel bad just reporting hordes of bugs and doing nothing to fix them. Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
When I search in the tagging menu for "no footnotes" and select it – then click "add one selected tag", with the "sources" tab having a (1) after it – the tool adds two {{ no footnotes}} tags. Diff 1, Diff 2. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I should probably be reporting this at Phabricator, but I have no idea how to use it properly, so, until I do, here we are. The tool disobeys MOS:ORDER when adding deletion templates; in this edit, the tool added the template above the hatnote. Not major, but an annoyance that could use with a quick fix if possible. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to reply to what I thought was a very helpful reminder about the notability of WP:PROF and provide some more context for the humanities specifically. While I agree that h-index of twenty, as a very general guideline, is a useful metric for STEM academics, it is generally lower for the humanities. This is especially the case when one uses Scopus, where many non-STEM scholars have unusually low h-index counts (for example, Leo Steinberg and Linda Nochlin score 5 and 4 respectively). Looking at the citation count in Google Scholar can also be tricky, as humanities research is often simply not as robust, popular, and well-funded as science. It is not unusual for notable art historians, historians, literary scholars etc. to have a citation count for a single important source lower than 1000. Just something I wanted to point out. Ppt91 talk 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Popular unreviewed articles. It currently shows 50 articles, and refreshes hourly. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
A quick reminder that {{
one source}} (this article relies largely or entirely on a single source
) is a cleanup tag for articles that cite just one source, and that's a problem. Quoting from the template documentation:
A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. [...] Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality.
If the cited source is reliable, fully verifies the content in the article, and does not raise any potential issues of neutral point of view, it's not a problem. This is often the case with stubs or short articles on uncontroversial topics. Since the purpose of citations is to allow readers to verify the contents of an article, asking creators to add redundant additional citations is not going to improve it, and in some cases might damage it (by obscuring the actual source of information).
I've been seeing too many reviewers mechanistically tagging all articles that cite one source with this lately, so I thought it was worth a general reminder. – Joe ( talk) 08:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hola. Tagging an article for unclear citation style, I find myself dumping a multiple issues tag on the page with the unclear citation repeated ( this here is the result) twice. I thought it was finger trouble and redid it but sure enough, the tool is dumping the citation tag twice and creating a multiple issues tag. I think it might be a bug, Sherlock... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
BTW, currently taking my own advice above ("Twinkle is your friend") and using Twinkle for tagging until this one's sorted out... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed As of 8:00 UTC today this bug should be fixed :) Thanks to
User:MPGuy2824 for testing the fix. --
Sohom (
talk)
13:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to get some input from others about how to handle pages created for upcoming major events, such as the 2022 Asian Games. In preparation for the Games, users created a lot of articles, such as Water polo at the 2022 Asian Games, that do not meet notability guidelines and are largely empty. Understandably, these articles have been draftified, redirected, etc. because it is too soon to create the article. However, non-NPP users keep undoing these redirects or circumventing AfC because, obviously, the event will be notable.
As a newer NPPer, I'd love to hear others' advice on how to handle situations like this. I completely understand the perspective of the users who are thinking, "This is important!" but again, it's not useful to have basically blank pages or pages with a bunch of empty tables. This is a perfect use of drafts, but the users involved are often not utilizing or fighting against drafts. Especially as we're so close to having information, it just seems complicated. I'd love feedback. Significa liberdade ( talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, some time ago, I tried out NPF and added Filter to show Orphan articles. Finding a few articles with multiple Orphan tags, I did a little investigating. I know there is a time-lag delay from when the article is first tagged to browser refresh. More importantly, I can see how the tag itself can be confusing. What are thoughts of changing the tag? It could be: Add orphan (article missing tag & needs to be tagged); or Tagged orphan (article already tagged & needs de-orphan). So this will clarify the appropriate action. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm considering applying for a trial of the reviewer permission in time for the backlog drive. I wanted to ask if anyone had any suggestions for me as for what I should do or any helpful things to know before doing so. Thanks. Deauthorized. ( talk) 16:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I recently used the Page Curation tool to send an article to AfD. When doing so, the Page Curation tool leaves a notice on the talk page of the editor to inform them of the pending AfD discussion. The notice (
example) contains the phrase Hello, [article creator's username], and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username [my username]
. This is perfectly fine for when articles created by newer individuals, but this
may come off as condescending when it's used on the talk page of more experienced users.
Is there a way for me to customize this message so that the bits targeted at new users only trigger for users who meet certain requirements (such as those users not yet having attained ECP), or would this require a change to software for it to work?
CC: Tataral
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello [example], I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [example article] for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the topfor G11). VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Novem Linguae: Is there still a way to change this, either by altering the on-wiki template or via Phab? Discussion in the ticket seems to have ended. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
How is the information that a page has been reviewed or unreviewed stored? Does it keep record of the history or is it just a record of current status? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Survey: Do you run Earwig copyvio check on every article you patrol? My impression is that this is mandatory, but an editor disagrees with me, so want to double check that my understanding is correct. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Running it on every article seems like overkill and a failure to assume good faith to me.I think your opinion is out of alignment with best practices and you should start running Earwig on every article you mark as reviewed, before you let through a bunch of copyright violations. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)