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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
Morning folks!! Is there any plan to continue the drive for at least another couple of weeks, or even a month. I don't mind putting another couple of weeks into it, even though I've got a ton of work to get through this year. I do plan to do more on a continual basis. scope_creep Talk 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing. Yes, but how? Obvious problem, non-obvious solution. Recruitment efforts are ongoing.
this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. These backlog drives are doing their job. They're not getting to zero backlog, but they are keeping us stable at 8,000 unreviewed articles over a six month period. See graph above for supporting data. I think it's safe to say there's no way we would be at 8,000 articles right now without these two backlog drives. So in my opinion backlog drives are very successful, and I plan to keep doing them, perhaps 3 or 4 a year.
More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling?We have a program to reward regular reviewing. @ Dr vulpes is the current NPP awards coordinator. Sure, maybe this can be expanded, ideas are encouraged :) Please also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing.
we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. Agreed that modern NPP does have to check notability. I do think this adds a significant amount of time to each review. Opening and evaluating sources for GNG is not fast. However I would not be in favor of eliminating this because it is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability. Most folks want us to do this.
or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide?This is the nuclear option. If the backlog gets ridiculously high (like >25,000), I will look into software changes to let articles fall off the back of the queue. Not there yet though.
as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. This area has backlogs around two weeks sometimes. Not ideal, but it seems to self-fix. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
[It] is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability– it's absolutely not a 'fringe position' to say that NPP does not have to perform detailed checks of notability, which is all that anyone is saying: reread the tutorial (current and past versions), reread the earliest guidelines we had, reread Insertcleverphrasehere's original flowchart, reread past discussions on this talk page, listen to the concerns expressed elsewhere by users with decades of policy experience about (some) NPPer's current bloated expectations. Notability has always been a peripheral concern of NPP, far down the list of priorities and generally limited to checking for obvious lack of significance (CSD-level or near) and using {{ notability}} tags to triage more complex cases. Because our purpose is and always has been triage: quickly dealing with threats to the encyclopaedia, then marking less serious and more time-consuming issues for attention by other processes. Who are these 'folks' that have asked us to depart from this longstanding consensus, and do they realise how big our workload already is? – Joe ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I did not have the energy to fully review the very large number of changes made to the WP:NPP page, so it may still need additional editing to reflect current practices. I am aware that WAID, a great editor, shares similar views to you on this, and you two may be the main editors with this particular position. I am hesitant to trust years-old diffs for indicating what the current practices are. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG).– two or more references. That is an exceedingly quick and easy check. Note the absence of a requirement to go looking for sources, and that if the answer is "no" the most onerous check required down the line (only in certain circumstances) is googling for the existence of uncited sources. And ICPH's workflow certainly represented one of the most thorough takes on NPP at the time it was made.
WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc.– well, that's not true. My views on those issues, as clearly stated elsewhere, depart from the consensus guidelines on a number of points. I don't understand what grounds you have to continually assume that I am either incapable of editing based on consensus or choose not to, but I'd appreciate it if you could at least try to evidence your aspersions next time. In any case, I've already linked you to the version before my (or your) changes, which if anything gives even less weight to notability. – Joe ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
In NPP, I came across
Coat of arms of the Hauteville family - which is apparently a translation of an equivalent
Italian Wikipedia article (by a declared paid editor) about a dynasty on which we already have
an article. On the face of it, the article is well-sourced. My question, though, is it actually notable? Looking through results for a search for articles titled "Coat of arms of the", the first several pages of results are all countries, provinces, states or cities. Around 100 results in, there are some individual Polish family results. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject
- but the article on the coat of arms is several times larger than the article on the family that bears the arms. It seems...
WP:UNDUE? And a merge would also be ridiculous. Or am I just overthinking this, it's clearly a notable topic even though the 'main' article isn't that big, and I should serve myself a trout? Thoughts?
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
A similar but more articulate thesis was made by the Sicilian historian Agostino Inveges, in the third volume of his Annali della felice città di Palermo, prima sedia, corona del Re, e Capo del Regno di Sicilia, a work that was printed between 1649 and 1651. In the views of Inveges, who took up the theses of Giuseppe Sancetta, the Hauteville adopted the new coat of arms, abandoning the one with the two lions of the Duchy of Normandy. The monarchs were to be endowed with a coat of arms "with two stripes, or as Sancetta says: with two bends sinister, chequy gules and argent on a azure field: as is seen in three very ancient wooden plaques hung in the Cathedral of Palermo above the Royal porphyry tombs of King Roger, and of the Empress Constance his daughter [...]".
There seems to be a bit of a mystery about this article not showing on google, your help is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, new reviewer here asking for help! MNL League Cup in the feed should probably be draftified. In this case and for future reference, should I leave this to someone with page mover rights, or is this something I can action myself?
(I notice that the article has previously been draftified; there might be a WP:CIR issue with the author, 20% of whose edits have been deleted.) IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 13:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
A user is creating a series of disambiguation pages titled "Episode n", which all disambiguate to "Episode n" (Primeval) and "Episode n" (Twin Peaks). But there are no articles at those destinations, they're redirects, to List of Primeval episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes. I had listed some of these as CSD (Unnecessary disambiguation page), it was removed, another NPP patroller had done the same, this was also removed. So there is some confusion - are these valid disambiguation pages, or not? My opinion is still "not" - we should not be deliberately linking to redirects, but I'd like to hear from more experienced patrollers. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link may not start the line (unless it has a redirect that is devoted to it), but it should still be the only blue wikilink.I do not recall, but could have missed it, any sort of general guideline/consensus about dab pages that only link to elements of articles instead of a mix of articles and mentions.
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.
I've been meaning to suggest this for a while now, but I'd like to propose that redirects left behind from page moves by page movers should be automatically marked as reviewed. Page mover is granted to individuals that have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming, and I don't think it's generally necessary for us to be checking the work of page movers. It may not represent a significant impact on the backlog, but I think everything that we can do to reduce the backlog and the work of reviewers is a step in the right direction and helps to make the workload more manageable.
If there is consensus for this suggestion then we would obviously need to ask @ DannyS712 to make adjustments to their bot, or ask for someone else to write something up, but I don't think there's a huge technical burden or hurdle to implementing something like this. Additionally, if there is a way to do so, we could also hopefully apply the same code, in which redirects from a particular user group would be marked as reviewed, to admins. This way we can remove admins from the slow to load and cumbersome redirect autopatrol list to make managing the list easier. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
suppressredirect
flag, for example, if not even less. You also say "For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue." If I'm not mistaken, the reasons behind those two are completely different, so I'm unsure why that's being brought up here. Exempting every administrator's articles from scrutiny by patrollers is not the same as exempting a specific fraction of a page mover's redirects. And just for the record, all administrators are on the redirect-autopatrolled list by default, which naturally includes page moves. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I made a query for all unpatrolled redirects with exactly 1 revision, where the redirect was created by a page mover, and there is a move log at the same timestamp as the edit creating the page:
Query to run
|
---|
SELECT page_id AS 'pageid', page_title AS 'title', ptrpt_value AS 'target', actor_name AS 'creator' FROM page JOIN pagetriage_page ON page_id = ptrp_page_id JOIN pagetriage_page_tags ON ptrp_page_id = ptrpt_page_id JOIN revision rv ON page_latest = rev_id JOIN actor ON rev_actor = actor_id JOIN user_groups ON actor_user = ug_user WHERE ptrp_reviewed = 0 AND ptrpt_tag_id = 9 # Snippet AND page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 AND EXISTS ( # Only 1 revision based on rev_count page triage tag SELECT 1 FROM pagetriage_page_tags tags2 WHERE tags2.ptrpt_page_id = page_id AND tags2.ptrpt_tag_id = 7 AND tags2.ptrpt_value = 1 ) AND EXISTS ( # Move log from the same time by the same person SELECT 1 FROM logging_logindex lgl2 WHERE log_namespace = page_namespace AND log_title = page_title AND log_timestamp = rev_timestamp AND log_actor = rev_actor AND log_type = 'move' AND log_action = 'move' ) AND ug_group = 'extendedmover' LIMIT 100; |
and if there is consensus in this discussion then I'll file a BRFA asking to be able to patrol these automatically. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion with the Joan Riudavets article. There has been past disagreement re: AfDs, redirects, etc., however the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (There is also an error on the article's Talk page.) What needs to be done in this case? -- Cheers, Cl3phact0 ( talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there any talk of a redirect backlog drive soon e.g. March or April? I ask because at the point of writing this there's over 22k unreviewed redirects, which is a lot more than when previous drives have been started. greyzxq talk 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This was mentioned in the above topic a few times. I started a discussion on it at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Recognition_for_consistent_reviewing and there was support for it but it didn't go much further. As described there, IMO it's a way to build the healthy horsepower that we need on an ongoing basis. I ended up by saying I would list the results in that talk page and then see if folks want this to go any farther. Basically it will list how long of a stretch persons have of doing at least 30 reviews per month starting with January. And I'd do the first listing after month #2 which is February. So if you're interested in this, do at least 30 reviews each and every month. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Not going to PERM because I've never gone before but Britfilm has 600 articles in the past year (~80 in the queue right now) and I am not seeing any deletion controversies. Articles are not massive but they're using proper sources and I don't see what NPRs can do except marking them reviewed. Why go through the motions? Can't y'all just give them autopatrolled? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have an "Also mark as reviewed" checkbox added to the bottom of the "Mark this page as reviewed" popup in the Page Curation tool? I've lost track of the number of times I've written a message to a page creator and hit "Mark as reviewed" instead of "Send message", which, yes, marks the page as reviewed, but loses the message I've written. Other popups from the tool have such a popup. To clarify, there are two options when you click on the button - mark as reviewed, or send a message; you can't do both, even though other such buttons have the dual functionality. (Yes, this is "me" problem, but I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone!) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello to whomever makes comments on this talk page! I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. Just curious who did so and why because, after reviewing the guidelines for granting user rights, I'm not sure if I am the right type of editor for working on this project. I'm more than willing to help considering the backlog, but within the range of what is explicitly acceptable by content policies, I tend to be an inclusionist. On the other hand, participating in this would help me gain a better understanding of what content in practice is precluded by Wikipedia content policy where the policies do not explicitly preclude it in detail. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here. Agreed. Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. Our judgment calls need to align with typical, average community consensus, rather than an inclusionist instinct.
Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. ... If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable...I wouldn't say that I'd find nominating articles for deletion to be uncomfortable. I've now reviewed all of the "Essential further reading" essays and policy pages at WP:NPPS. Where content is clearly violative of policy, I'm completely willing to delete it and to do so proactively. I guess my only complaint over years of editing and getting into disputes with other editors from time to time is that I sometimes feel that long-time editors sometimes impose reverts to content that the policies don't explicitly preclude and are in a sense enforcing policy rules that
I have an open BRFA to replace EranBot's task of reporting potential copyright issues from CopyPatrol to PageTriage (NewPagesFeed) used by NPR at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion we sometimes see nominations of drafts that have been nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. These are kept, citing an essay that has a slightly inaccurate title but is otherwise entirely correct, Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity at MFD. They are reviewed for notability and sanity when they are submitted to Articles for Creation. These nominations are almost always almost certainly good-faith efforts by reviewers who are trying to help the review process by reviewing drafts, and applying the same criteria as they would apply to articles. So my question is whether clear advice is needed to reviewers that it isn't necessary to review drafts for notability, and that their effort might be better spent in reviewing articles that have not yet been reviewed. I understand that drafts are reviewed, but they should be reviewed by reviewers who understand that they are primarily checking for attack pages and other BLP violations that should be tagged for G10. Drafts are, when necessary, tagged for any of the General speedy deletion criteria, but mostly unsubmitted drafts can be left alone except by their authors. Drafts are tagged for G11 if they are advertising, but that can be done if and when they are submitted for review. Since drafts are not indexed, most kinds of useless drafts or stupid drafts can be ignored.
I haven't recently read the instructions for new reviewers, so maybe they are clear enough. What I do see is that drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. My concern isn't so much about the waste of the time of the editors at MFD, as much as the time that is apparently being spent by a few reviewers checking drafts for notability, when they could usefully be checking new articles for notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, how would one disambiguate Histoire de France? Using the original French title doesn't seem correct for the English WP, History of France (Jules Michelet)? IgelRM ( talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Auwalu Abdullahi Rano get Wikipedia notability but it was not appear in a searching Engine. Because Auwalu Abdullahi Rano was a Nigerian Businessman, oil tycoon, and public figure. Bamalli01 ( talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I am the new guy on the block, so the following problems might be between the chair and the keyboard. Still,
I wound up always manually deleting the tag due to #2, and at least once accidentally deleted the redirect due to #1. Any pointers will be appreciated. Викидим ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The fifth criterion may be rather confusing. Does it means that one should not have blocks in place in the last six month or blocks placed in the last 6mo? Too curious to ask this because I have had a partial block from August to November; I would theoretically be ineligible for the rights until June if the criterion meant active blocks withing the duration. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, NPPers,
I have a question I hope someone can answer. I see a lot of draft articles and I monitor the Move log so I see a lot of articles that have been moved from User space to main space by new editors. When I first started doing this, I'd see a link stating "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom of all of the new pages added to main space. Now, I only see this tag on about half of the new pages (or fewer than that) that are added so I'm worried that these new articles are not appearing on the page lists that NPPers monitor. I check the page log to see if the article has already been reviewed and they never are. Has something changed in the bot or mechanism that tags new articles? Are new articles not reviewed if they are moved from Draft space to main space? Are there other reasons why this patrol link would not appear on the page? Lots of questions I've been wondering for a few weeks now. Thanks for any answers you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the NPP Browser tool in the April 2024 Newsletter. I have not seen this before, and think it is fantastic and rather helpful. FULBERT ( talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (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.
Howdy folks.
Looking at the article backlog graph, I think we need to have 3–4 article only backlog drives a year to maintain our current backlog levels and prevent major backlog growth. 4 backlog drives a year is too many for burnout reasons. So I think we should consider 3 backlog drives a year that focus on articles only (no redirects). That's a cadence of one every 4 months. Our last one was in January, so that would mean we should look into doing another backlog drive in May.
Thoughts on this? Shall we move forward, or do we need to adjust the details? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello all, someone emailed me asking to create an article for pay for Sonu Sharma, a motivational speaker. I was concerned about how they obtained my email address, as I use it exclusively for Wikipedia. Given my strict stance against paid editing, I declined the request. If any reviewer comes across an article creation for Sonu Sharma, please remember to check for any UPE/COI concerns. Thanks. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Usually I can easily just click on "Check for copyvio" on the NPP toolbar, but for these few days the tool seems to not be working. It says "Calculating copyvio percentage" but the result never came out. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. One possible outcome (Question 1, Option D) would affect the workflow of new page reviewers. – Joe ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I clicked on the close button, the little 'x' at the top of the toolbar, by mistake. Now I can't see my toolbar. How can I restore this? As far as I can tell, it is no longer there. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
For clarity here is an image: [3]. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As a heads up, for consistency with other templates, I will move a few templates relating to the deletion notices on user talk pages such as Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:AfD-notice-NPF, and this can be impacted a lot. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly it might make sense to get rid of these custom NPR deletion templates and just use the standard template. Not sure we need all this code duplication. But that's something to discuss after everything is moved back and we're at the status quo ante. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles 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) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (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 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 |
Morning folks!! Is there any plan to continue the drive for at least another couple of weeks, or even a month. I don't mind putting another couple of weeks into it, even though I've got a ton of work to get through this year. I do plan to do more on a continual basis. scope_creep Talk 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing. Yes, but how? Obvious problem, non-obvious solution. Recruitment efforts are ongoing.
this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. These backlog drives are doing their job. They're not getting to zero backlog, but they are keeping us stable at 8,000 unreviewed articles over a six month period. See graph above for supporting data. I think it's safe to say there's no way we would be at 8,000 articles right now without these two backlog drives. So in my opinion backlog drives are very successful, and I plan to keep doing them, perhaps 3 or 4 a year.
More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling?We have a program to reward regular reviewing. @ Dr vulpes is the current NPP awards coordinator. Sure, maybe this can be expanded, ideas are encouraged :) Please also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing.
we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. Agreed that modern NPP does have to check notability. I do think this adds a significant amount of time to each review. Opening and evaluating sources for GNG is not fast. However I would not be in favor of eliminating this because it is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability. Most folks want us to do this.
or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide?This is the nuclear option. If the backlog gets ridiculously high (like >25,000), I will look into software changes to let articles fall off the back of the queue. Not there yet though.
as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. This area has backlogs around two weeks sometimes. Not ideal, but it seems to self-fix. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
[It] is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability– it's absolutely not a 'fringe position' to say that NPP does not have to perform detailed checks of notability, which is all that anyone is saying: reread the tutorial (current and past versions), reread the earliest guidelines we had, reread Insertcleverphrasehere's original flowchart, reread past discussions on this talk page, listen to the concerns expressed elsewhere by users with decades of policy experience about (some) NPPer's current bloated expectations. Notability has always been a peripheral concern of NPP, far down the list of priorities and generally limited to checking for obvious lack of significance (CSD-level or near) and using {{ notability}} tags to triage more complex cases. Because our purpose is and always has been triage: quickly dealing with threats to the encyclopaedia, then marking less serious and more time-consuming issues for attention by other processes. Who are these 'folks' that have asked us to depart from this longstanding consensus, and do they realise how big our workload already is? – Joe ( talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I did not have the energy to fully review the very large number of changes made to the WP:NPP page, so it may still need additional editing to reflect current practices. I am aware that WAID, a great editor, shares similar views to you on this, and you two may be the main editors with this particular position. I am hesitant to trust years-old diffs for indicating what the current practices are. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG).– two or more references. That is an exceedingly quick and easy check. Note the absence of a requirement to go looking for sources, and that if the answer is "no" the most onerous check required down the line (only in certain circumstances) is googling for the existence of uncited sources. And ICPH's workflow certainly represented one of the most thorough takes on NPP at the time it was made.
WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc.– well, that's not true. My views on those issues, as clearly stated elsewhere, depart from the consensus guidelines on a number of points. I don't understand what grounds you have to continually assume that I am either incapable of editing based on consensus or choose not to, but I'd appreciate it if you could at least try to evidence your aspersions next time. In any case, I've already linked you to the version before my (or your) changes, which if anything gives even less weight to notability. – Joe ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
In NPP, I came across
Coat of arms of the Hauteville family - which is apparently a translation of an equivalent
Italian Wikipedia article (by a declared paid editor) about a dynasty on which we already have
an article. On the face of it, the article is well-sourced. My question, though, is it actually notable? Looking through results for a search for articles titled "Coat of arms of the", the first several pages of results are all countries, provinces, states or cities. Around 100 results in, there are some individual Polish family results. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject
- but the article on the coat of arms is several times larger than the article on the family that bears the arms. It seems...
WP:UNDUE? And a merge would also be ridiculous. Or am I just overthinking this, it's clearly a notable topic even though the 'main' article isn't that big, and I should serve myself a trout? Thoughts?
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
A similar but more articulate thesis was made by the Sicilian historian Agostino Inveges, in the third volume of his Annali della felice città di Palermo, prima sedia, corona del Re, e Capo del Regno di Sicilia, a work that was printed between 1649 and 1651. In the views of Inveges, who took up the theses of Giuseppe Sancetta, the Hauteville adopted the new coat of arms, abandoning the one with the two lions of the Duchy of Normandy. The monarchs were to be endowed with a coat of arms "with two stripes, or as Sancetta says: with two bends sinister, chequy gules and argent on a azure field: as is seen in three very ancient wooden plaques hung in the Cathedral of Palermo above the Royal porphyry tombs of King Roger, and of the Empress Constance his daughter [...]".
There seems to be a bit of a mystery about this article not showing on google, your help is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, new reviewer here asking for help! MNL League Cup in the feed should probably be draftified. In this case and for future reference, should I leave this to someone with page mover rights, or is this something I can action myself?
(I notice that the article has previously been draftified; there might be a WP:CIR issue with the author, 20% of whose edits have been deleted.) IgnatiusofLondon ( talk) 13:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
A user is creating a series of disambiguation pages titled "Episode n", which all disambiguate to "Episode n" (Primeval) and "Episode n" (Twin Peaks). But there are no articles at those destinations, they're redirects, to List of Primeval episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes. I had listed some of these as CSD (Unnecessary disambiguation page), it was removed, another NPP patroller had done the same, this was also removed. So there is some confusion - are these valid disambiguation pages, or not? My opinion is still "not" - we should not be deliberately linking to redirects, but I'd like to hear from more experienced patrollers. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link may not start the line (unless it has a redirect that is devoted to it), but it should still be the only blue wikilink.I do not recall, but could have missed it, any sort of general guideline/consensus about dab pages that only link to elements of articles instead of a mix of articles and mentions.
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.
I've been meaning to suggest this for a while now, but I'd like to propose that redirects left behind from page moves by page movers should be automatically marked as reviewed. Page mover is granted to individuals that have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming, and I don't think it's generally necessary for us to be checking the work of page movers. It may not represent a significant impact on the backlog, but I think everything that we can do to reduce the backlog and the work of reviewers is a step in the right direction and helps to make the workload more manageable.
If there is consensus for this suggestion then we would obviously need to ask @ DannyS712 to make adjustments to their bot, or ask for someone else to write something up, but I don't think there's a huge technical burden or hurdle to implementing something like this. Additionally, if there is a way to do so, we could also hopefully apply the same code, in which redirects from a particular user group would be marked as reviewed, to admins. This way we can remove admins from the slow to load and cumbersome redirect autopatrol list to make managing the list easier. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
suppressredirect
flag, for example, if not even less. You also say "For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue." If I'm not mistaken, the reasons behind those two are completely different, so I'm unsure why that's being brought up here. Exempting every administrator's articles from scrutiny by patrollers is not the same as exempting a specific fraction of a page mover's redirects. And just for the record, all administrators are on the redirect-autopatrolled list by default, which naturally includes page moves. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I made a query for all unpatrolled redirects with exactly 1 revision, where the redirect was created by a page mover, and there is a move log at the same timestamp as the edit creating the page:
Query to run
|
---|
SELECT page_id AS 'pageid', page_title AS 'title', ptrpt_value AS 'target', actor_name AS 'creator' FROM page JOIN pagetriage_page ON page_id = ptrp_page_id JOIN pagetriage_page_tags ON ptrp_page_id = ptrpt_page_id JOIN revision rv ON page_latest = rev_id JOIN actor ON rev_actor = actor_id JOIN user_groups ON actor_user = ug_user WHERE ptrp_reviewed = 0 AND ptrpt_tag_id = 9 # Snippet AND page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 AND EXISTS ( # Only 1 revision based on rev_count page triage tag SELECT 1 FROM pagetriage_page_tags tags2 WHERE tags2.ptrpt_page_id = page_id AND tags2.ptrpt_tag_id = 7 AND tags2.ptrpt_value = 1 ) AND EXISTS ( # Move log from the same time by the same person SELECT 1 FROM logging_logindex lgl2 WHERE log_namespace = page_namespace AND log_title = page_title AND log_timestamp = rev_timestamp AND log_actor = rev_actor AND log_type = 'move' AND log_action = 'move' ) AND ug_group = 'extendedmover' LIMIT 100; |
and if there is consensus in this discussion then I'll file a BRFA asking to be able to patrol these automatically. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion with the Joan Riudavets article. There has been past disagreement re: AfDs, redirects, etc., however the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (There is also an error on the article's Talk page.) What needs to be done in this case? -- Cheers, Cl3phact0 ( talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there any talk of a redirect backlog drive soon e.g. March or April? I ask because at the point of writing this there's over 22k unreviewed redirects, which is a lot more than when previous drives have been started. greyzxq talk 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This was mentioned in the above topic a few times. I started a discussion on it at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Recognition_for_consistent_reviewing and there was support for it but it didn't go much further. As described there, IMO it's a way to build the healthy horsepower that we need on an ongoing basis. I ended up by saying I would list the results in that talk page and then see if folks want this to go any farther. Basically it will list how long of a stretch persons have of doing at least 30 reviews per month starting with January. And I'd do the first listing after month #2 which is February. So if you're interested in this, do at least 30 reviews each and every month. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Not going to PERM because I've never gone before but Britfilm has 600 articles in the past year (~80 in the queue right now) and I am not seeing any deletion controversies. Articles are not massive but they're using proper sources and I don't see what NPRs can do except marking them reviewed. Why go through the motions? Can't y'all just give them autopatrolled? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have an "Also mark as reviewed" checkbox added to the bottom of the "Mark this page as reviewed" popup in the Page Curation tool? I've lost track of the number of times I've written a message to a page creator and hit "Mark as reviewed" instead of "Send message", which, yes, marks the page as reviewed, but loses the message I've written. Other popups from the tool have such a popup. To clarify, there are two options when you click on the button - mark as reviewed, or send a message; you can't do both, even though other such buttons have the dual functionality. (Yes, this is "me" problem, but I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone!) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello to whomever makes comments on this talk page! I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. Just curious who did so and why because, after reviewing the guidelines for granting user rights, I'm not sure if I am the right type of editor for working on this project. I'm more than willing to help considering the backlog, but within the range of what is explicitly acceptable by content policies, I tend to be an inclusionist. On the other hand, participating in this would help me gain a better understanding of what content in practice is precluded by Wikipedia content policy where the policies do not explicitly preclude it in detail. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here. Agreed. Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. Our judgment calls need to align with typical, average community consensus, rather than an inclusionist instinct.
Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. ... If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable...I wouldn't say that I'd find nominating articles for deletion to be uncomfortable. I've now reviewed all of the "Essential further reading" essays and policy pages at WP:NPPS. Where content is clearly violative of policy, I'm completely willing to delete it and to do so proactively. I guess my only complaint over years of editing and getting into disputes with other editors from time to time is that I sometimes feel that long-time editors sometimes impose reverts to content that the policies don't explicitly preclude and are in a sense enforcing policy rules that
I have an open BRFA to replace EranBot's task of reporting potential copyright issues from CopyPatrol to PageTriage (NewPagesFeed) used by NPR at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At Miscellany for Deletion we sometimes see nominations of drafts that have been nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. These are kept, citing an essay that has a slightly inaccurate title but is otherwise entirely correct, Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity at MFD. They are reviewed for notability and sanity when they are submitted to Articles for Creation. These nominations are almost always almost certainly good-faith efforts by reviewers who are trying to help the review process by reviewing drafts, and applying the same criteria as they would apply to articles. So my question is whether clear advice is needed to reviewers that it isn't necessary to review drafts for notability, and that their effort might be better spent in reviewing articles that have not yet been reviewed. I understand that drafts are reviewed, but they should be reviewed by reviewers who understand that they are primarily checking for attack pages and other BLP violations that should be tagged for G10. Drafts are, when necessary, tagged for any of the General speedy deletion criteria, but mostly unsubmitted drafts can be left alone except by their authors. Drafts are tagged for G11 if they are advertising, but that can be done if and when they are submitted for review. Since drafts are not indexed, most kinds of useless drafts or stupid drafts can be ignored.
I haven't recently read the instructions for new reviewers, so maybe they are clear enough. What I do see is that drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. My concern isn't so much about the waste of the time of the editors at MFD, as much as the time that is apparently being spent by a few reviewers checking drafts for notability, when they could usefully be checking new articles for notability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, how would one disambiguate Histoire de France? Using the original French title doesn't seem correct for the English WP, History of France (Jules Michelet)? IgelRM ( talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The article Auwalu Abdullahi Rano get Wikipedia notability but it was not appear in a searching Engine. Because Auwalu Abdullahi Rano was a Nigerian Businessman, oil tycoon, and public figure. Bamalli01 ( talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I am the new guy on the block, so the following problems might be between the chair and the keyboard. Still,
I wound up always manually deleting the tag due to #2, and at least once accidentally deleted the redirect due to #1. Any pointers will be appreciated. Викидим ( talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The fifth criterion may be rather confusing. Does it means that one should not have blocks in place in the last six month or blocks placed in the last 6mo? Too curious to ask this because I have had a partial block from August to November; I would theoretically be ineligible for the rights until June if the criterion meant active blocks withing the duration. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, NPPers,
I have a question I hope someone can answer. I see a lot of draft articles and I monitor the Move log so I see a lot of articles that have been moved from User space to main space by new editors. When I first started doing this, I'd see a link stating "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom of all of the new pages added to main space. Now, I only see this tag on about half of the new pages (or fewer than that) that are added so I'm worried that these new articles are not appearing on the page lists that NPPers monitor. I check the page log to see if the article has already been reviewed and they never are. Has something changed in the bot or mechanism that tags new articles? Are new articles not reviewed if they are moved from Draft space to main space? Are there other reasons why this patrol link would not appear on the page? Lots of questions I've been wondering for a few weeks now. Thanks for any answers you can offer. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the NPP Browser tool in the April 2024 Newsletter. I have not seen this before, and think it is fantastic and rather helpful. FULBERT ( talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (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.
Howdy folks.
Looking at the article backlog graph, I think we need to have 3–4 article only backlog drives a year to maintain our current backlog levels and prevent major backlog growth. 4 backlog drives a year is too many for burnout reasons. So I think we should consider 3 backlog drives a year that focus on articles only (no redirects). That's a cadence of one every 4 months. Our last one was in January, so that would mean we should look into doing another backlog drive in May.
Thoughts on this? Shall we move forward, or do we need to adjust the details? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello all, someone emailed me asking to create an article for pay for Sonu Sharma, a motivational speaker. I was concerned about how they obtained my email address, as I use it exclusively for Wikipedia. Given my strict stance against paid editing, I declined the request. If any reviewer comes across an article creation for Sonu Sharma, please remember to check for any UPE/COI concerns. Thanks. – DreamRimmer ( talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Usually I can easily just click on "Check for copyvio" on the NPP toolbar, but for these few days the tool seems to not be working. It says "Calculating copyvio percentage" but the result never came out. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. One possible outcome (Question 1, Option D) would affect the workflow of new page reviewers. – Joe ( talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I clicked on the close button, the little 'x' at the top of the toolbar, by mistake. Now I can't see my toolbar. How can I restore this? As far as I can tell, it is no longer there. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
For clarity here is an image: [3]. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
As a heads up, for consistency with other templates, I will move a few templates relating to the deletion notices on user talk pages such as Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:AfD-notice-NPF, and this can be impacted a lot. Toadette ( Let's talk together!) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly it might make sense to get rid of these custom NPR deletion templates and just use the standard template. Not sure we need all this code duplication. But that's something to discuss after everything is moved back and we're at the status quo ante. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles 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) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)