Tutorial | Discussion |
New page feed |
Reviewers |
Curation tool Suggestions |
Coordination |
This page is for discussing matters concerning coordination. For other discussions and help reviewing pages, please see:
Reviewer talk |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New pages patrol/Coordination page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Maybe it would be healthier to have something that focuses on building more reviewers that are active on an ongoing basis. For example, longer term (over 1 year) there are only 7 reviewers that average at least 2 articles per day and only 19 that average at least one per day. Maybe add an database listing (and eventually awards) of who has gone the most months with reviewing at least 20 articles in each month. North8000 ( talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
So I think that what is confirmed doable is list and award people that do at least 30 edits in every month of the year. And temporarily do the same by quarters starting with Q1 2024. North8000 ( talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Dr vulpes:@ Novem Linguae: Quarterly criteria (at least 120 per quarter) would also be fine and has the advantage of somebody not getting booted from the running by just taking a 1 month break. If we want to do this we should announce it by early January (if monthly) or sometime in January if quarterly) IMO it would be a good move to have more editing "horsepower" in place which would notice and respond when the backlog climbs. Also would probably get more regular reviewers in place. A big burst of effort with backlog drives is also good. But when you look at the math, a big backlog (which is only about 2 weeks worth of reviews) is more of an indicator of lack of regular reviewers who notice and respond to climbing backlog. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I plan to start listing these here. We'll see if folks want it to go anywhere. North8000 ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through February. Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@ A412:,@ Atlantic306:,@ Bastun:,@ BoyTheKingCanDance:,@ BuySomeApples:,@ Chaotic Enby:,@ CycloneYoris:,@ Dcotos:,@ DreamRimmer:,@ Grahaml35:,@ Hey man im josh:,@ Hughesdarren:,@ Ingratis:,@ Ipigott:,@ JTtheOG:,@ Kj cheetham:,@ MPGuy2824:,@ Maile66:,@ Mccapra:,@ North8000:,@ NotAGenious:,@ Raydann:,@ Rosguill:,@ Rosiestep:,@ Ryan shell:,@ Sadads:,@ Sagotreespirit:,@ Significa liberdade:,@ Skynxnex:,@ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:,@ TechnoSquirrel69:,@ Umakant Bhalerao:,@ WikiOriginal-9:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@ A412:@ Atlantic306:@ Bastun:@ BoyTheKingCanDance:@ BuySomeApples:@ Chaotic Enby:@ CycloneYoris:@ DannyS712 bot III:@ Dcotos:@ DreamRimmer:@ Grahaml35:@ Hey man im josh:@ Hughesdarren:@ Ingratis:@ Ipigott:@ JTtheOG:@ Kj cheetham:@ MPGuy2824:@ Maile66:@ Mccapra:@ North8000:@ NotAGenious:@ Rosguill:@ Rosiestep:@ Ryan shell:@ Significa liberdade:@ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:@ Umakant Bhalerao:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but...surely there must be a way to automate NPP backlogs without depending on volunteers to carry the full load. A BOT could automatically reject unsourced articles and provide a relative response to the article creator, and the same for submissions with copyvios, poor sourcing, etc. BOTs can tag them quicker and more efficiently. Actually, a BOT could work hand-in-hand with the source rating BOTs such as User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. If we could automate the tedious parts and leave human reviewers to review only those articles that are notable, follow MOS, and are actually qualified for inclusion. AfC should only be releasing qualified articles, so maybe it is time to stop allowing just anyone to create articles in mainspace. Just a thought. Atsme 💬 📧 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the table at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers, only three users went through NPP school in the last year. It lists seven active trainers, but two of them explicitly state they are not taking on new students and one is taking an indefinite break from NPP, leaving four actually available trainers, only two of which have taken a student in the last year. In total 32 students have 'graduated' in the five or so years NPP school has been running, compared to roughly 484 users granted the perm in the same time period.
This inactivity shows that most users and most WP:PERM admins do not think NPP School is necessary to become a new page patroller. There's a small minority of reviewers who did come through it, and presumably found it useful, but realistically, with the small number of trainers, that opportunity is not really there for most people even if they were interested. With backlogs and recruitment both pressing issues, I'm also not sure why we would want to encourage people to go through a lengthy training process rather than simply applying at WP:PERM and getting stuck in immediately – which is what most people do anyway.
Thoughts? – Joe ( talk) 09:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Probably the "best of both worlds" would be to clarify what it is and what it's place is. It sounds like what its place is is a thorough training program (just) for people who choose that route. This would avoid the downside of scaring away people who would feel guilty/second class for trying NPP without choosing to go through that program. North8000 ( talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Onel5969, Joseywales1961, and Zippybonzo:. Hello NPP school instructors! We'd like to update the list of active instructors, in preparation for putting out a call for more instructors. Can you please reply here and state 1) if you are currently accepting new NPP school students, and 2) if you are not, if you have plans to resume NPP school instruction in the future? At the moment only Cassiopeia and Zippybonzo are listed as accepting students. Also, feel free to give any other thoughts you have about NPP school, your experiences teaching it, and its future. Thanks! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've removed the NPR right from Reading Beans (see User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/January#Autopatrolled). They were a prolific reviewer—4,465 article reviews in the last year—so unfortunately this will probably have an adverse effect on the size of the backlog. – Joe ( talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello to whomever makes comments to this talk page! Like I said on the NPP Reviewers talk page earlier today, 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. After following the instructions of the message to read the tutorial page and guidelines for granting user rights, I went to the NPP permissions reviewer to attempt applying, but instead followed the link to the NPP training program project page. Upon reading the Common A7 mistakes essay listed in the "Essential further reading" page section, I found a couple other essays (the Common claims of significance or importance and Credible claim of significance essays) linked on its page that I was wondering why they were not included. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a setting on the new pages feed or new pages that allows you to see which articles are missing a corresponding talk page? For example, you can filter for articles that "have no categories" or "may be orphaned." Is there a similar filter for articles lacking talk pages? If so, where can I find it? If not, could we add it to the new pages feed filtering capabilities? Thanks! Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Tutorial | Discussion |
New page feed |
Reviewers |
Curation tool Suggestions |
Coordination |
This page is for discussing matters concerning coordination. For other discussions and help reviewing pages, please see:
Reviewer talk |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New pages patrol/Coordination page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Maybe it would be healthier to have something that focuses on building more reviewers that are active on an ongoing basis. For example, longer term (over 1 year) there are only 7 reviewers that average at least 2 articles per day and only 19 that average at least one per day. Maybe add an database listing (and eventually awards) of who has gone the most months with reviewing at least 20 articles in each month. North8000 ( talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
So I think that what is confirmed doable is list and award people that do at least 30 edits in every month of the year. And temporarily do the same by quarters starting with Q1 2024. North8000 ( talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Dr vulpes:@ Novem Linguae: Quarterly criteria (at least 120 per quarter) would also be fine and has the advantage of somebody not getting booted from the running by just taking a 1 month break. If we want to do this we should announce it by early January (if monthly) or sometime in January if quarterly) IMO it would be a good move to have more editing "horsepower" in place which would notice and respond when the backlog climbs. Also would probably get more regular reviewers in place. A big burst of effort with backlog drives is also good. But when you look at the math, a big backlog (which is only about 2 weeks worth of reviews) is more of an indicator of lack of regular reviewers who notice and respond to climbing backlog. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I plan to start listing these here. We'll see if folks want it to go anywhere. North8000 ( talk) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through February. Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@ A412:,@ Atlantic306:,@ Bastun:,@ BoyTheKingCanDance:,@ BuySomeApples:,@ Chaotic Enby:,@ CycloneYoris:,@ Dcotos:,@ DreamRimmer:,@ Grahaml35:,@ Hey man im josh:,@ Hughesdarren:,@ Ingratis:,@ Ipigott:,@ JTtheOG:,@ Kj cheetham:,@ MPGuy2824:,@ Maile66:,@ Mccapra:,@ North8000:,@ NotAGenious:,@ Raydann:,@ Rosguill:,@ Rosiestep:,@ Ryan shell:,@ Sadads:,@ Sagotreespirit:,@ Significa liberdade:,@ Skynxnex:,@ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:,@ TechnoSquirrel69:,@ Umakant Bhalerao:,@ WikiOriginal-9:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@ A412:@ Atlantic306:@ Bastun:@ BoyTheKingCanDance:@ BuySomeApples:@ Chaotic Enby:@ CycloneYoris:@ DannyS712 bot III:@ Dcotos:@ DreamRimmer:@ Grahaml35:@ Hey man im josh:@ Hughesdarren:@ Ingratis:@ Ipigott:@ JTtheOG:@ Kj cheetham:@ MPGuy2824:@ Maile66:@ Mccapra:@ North8000:@ NotAGenious:@ Rosguill:@ Rosiestep:@ Ryan shell:@ Significa liberdade:@ Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:@ Umakant Bhalerao:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but...surely there must be a way to automate NPP backlogs without depending on volunteers to carry the full load. A BOT could automatically reject unsourced articles and provide a relative response to the article creator, and the same for submissions with copyvios, poor sourcing, etc. BOTs can tag them quicker and more efficiently. Actually, a BOT could work hand-in-hand with the source rating BOTs such as User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. If we could automate the tedious parts and leave human reviewers to review only those articles that are notable, follow MOS, and are actually qualified for inclusion. AfC should only be releasing qualified articles, so maybe it is time to stop allowing just anyone to create articles in mainspace. Just a thought. Atsme 💬 📧 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
According to the table at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers, only three users went through NPP school in the last year. It lists seven active trainers, but two of them explicitly state they are not taking on new students and one is taking an indefinite break from NPP, leaving four actually available trainers, only two of which have taken a student in the last year. In total 32 students have 'graduated' in the five or so years NPP school has been running, compared to roughly 484 users granted the perm in the same time period.
This inactivity shows that most users and most WP:PERM admins do not think NPP School is necessary to become a new page patroller. There's a small minority of reviewers who did come through it, and presumably found it useful, but realistically, with the small number of trainers, that opportunity is not really there for most people even if they were interested. With backlogs and recruitment both pressing issues, I'm also not sure why we would want to encourage people to go through a lengthy training process rather than simply applying at WP:PERM and getting stuck in immediately – which is what most people do anyway.
Thoughts? – Joe ( talk) 09:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Probably the "best of both worlds" would be to clarify what it is and what it's place is. It sounds like what its place is is a thorough training program (just) for people who choose that route. This would avoid the downside of scaring away people who would feel guilty/second class for trying NPP without choosing to go through that program. North8000 ( talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Onel5969, Joseywales1961, and Zippybonzo:. Hello NPP school instructors! We'd like to update the list of active instructors, in preparation for putting out a call for more instructors. Can you please reply here and state 1) if you are currently accepting new NPP school students, and 2) if you are not, if you have plans to resume NPP school instruction in the future? At the moment only Cassiopeia and Zippybonzo are listed as accepting students. Also, feel free to give any other thoughts you have about NPP school, your experiences teaching it, and its future. Thanks! – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've removed the NPR right from Reading Beans (see User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/January#Autopatrolled). They were a prolific reviewer—4,465 article reviews in the last year—so unfortunately this will probably have an adverse effect on the size of the backlog. – Joe ( talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello to whomever makes comments to this talk page! Like I said on the NPP Reviewers talk page earlier today, 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. After following the instructions of the message to read the tutorial page and guidelines for granting user rights, I went to the NPP permissions reviewer to attempt applying, but instead followed the link to the NPP training program project page. Upon reading the Common A7 mistakes essay listed in the "Essential further reading" page section, I found a couple other essays (the Common claims of significance or importance and Credible claim of significance essays) linked on its page that I was wondering why they were not included. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a setting on the new pages feed or new pages that allows you to see which articles are missing a corresponding talk page? For example, you can filter for articles that "have no categories" or "may be orphaned." Is there a similar filter for articles lacking talk pages? If so, where can I find it? If not, could we add it to the new pages feed filtering capabilities? Thanks! Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)