m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers) (bot
|
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers) (bot
Tag: Disambiguation links added
|
||
(30 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Automatic archive navigator}} |
{{Automatic archive navigator}} |
||
== Help? == |
|||
I am guessing I'm in the wrong place but am hoping the good graces of Wikipedia will take mercy and tell me where I need to be to ask my question. I recently posted my second article of creation. I was told that I did not need to have it approved through the draft process and could just move it to article status myself. So I did. Very quickly someone came along and gave it B status. Then I went to google it and couldn't find it only to learn that new pages have to be reviewed or wait 90 days. I didn't know that! Now I can't find it anywhere on the new pages to be reviewed list either! My creation [[Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal]] is lost in an alternate universe somewhere! Is there anything I can do to bring it home? I would like to volunteer to help with this whole review process thingy, but it looks a little overwhelming for a relative newby. There's so much I don't know. Wikipedia is a morass. :-) [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 21:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi there @[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]]. Your article is not lost. For an article to appear in Google, it needs to be checked by a member of New Page Patrol, have been more than 90 days since it was created, or created by a veteran editor who has a special right called "autopatroll". So for now your article is in this holding pattern. Right now the New Page feed has about 8700 articles in it. Articles are reviewed in no specific order by the volunteers. So it could get indexed as I'm typing this response or it might have to wait the 90 days to be indexed. The length of the article is about commendable - it looks comprehensive - but is also likely a deterrent to a fast review. One quick suggestion in passing: it looks like there is a paragraph that is [[WP:CLOP|closely paraphrased from]] [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html Frontline]. I would recommend rewriting that, any other place that may be similarly written. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Bless you! Thank you for responding so quickly and kindly. I will wait to see what happens. "Frontline" is actually directly quoted in a couple of places, yet on the detector it always shows up as a violation. I don't know why some quotes show up as copies while others don't, but it is appropriately quoted and referenced in the article itself - no violations - promise!!! So I guess I just wait, and that's okay, I just didn't know what was going on. I have learned something new again! Thank you! I am looking at volunteering to help out here - I'm just not sure I would know what to do. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Thank you for your help. I continue to impose on your patience. If you look here at Earwig, [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1054234201&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fpages%2Ffrontline%2Fshows%2Freligion%2Fwhy%2Fappeal.html] you can easily see that the Frontline excerpts are quotes that are appropriately set off, referenced and fully sourced. It says copyvio but it isn't. Earwig sometimes does that with quotes. |
|||
::: I went and put in my username to see the article's status and noted that someone marked the possibility of copyvio violations on it. On my draft, before finishing the article, Dianna deleted some material because I am too inexperienced in too many ways and didn't know that the copyvio rules didn't just apply to published articles - or rather, that everything on WP is in the public domain and is therefore considered published and is subject to those same rules. Those were fixed as soon as I was told. I note that Dianna did not say they had been fixed, should I go ask her to do so? Now I know better and write offsite, and import it in, only after carefully checking everything. There are no copyright violations in this article, I swear. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 04:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] as I said I only did a quick check here and so it is entirely possible that you've followed all our guidelines over COPYVIO. Thanks for your attention to the matter. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== NPP message == |
== NPP message == |
||
Line 51: | Line 61: | ||
There are several proposals in this workshop that would affect notability and the NPP workflow. For example, "Proposed solution 1.1 (to issue 1: Mass creations)" is "Require new articles to be supported by at least one citation to a reliable source that is not a database." The relationship between GNG and SNG is also discussed. This talk page/workshop may also be a good opportunity to inject some of your own proposals. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
There are several proposals in this workshop that would affect notability and the NPP workflow. For example, "Proposed solution 1.1 (to issue 1: Mass creations)" is "Require new articles to be supported by at least one citation to a reliable source that is not a database." The relationship between GNG and SNG is also discussed. This talk page/workshop may also be a good opportunity to inject some of your own proposals. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Help? == |
|||
I am guessing I'm in the wrong place but am hoping the good graces of Wikipedia will take mercy and tell me where I need to be to ask my question. I recently posted my second article of creation. I was told that I did not need to have it approved through the draft process and could just move it to article status myself. So I did. Very quickly someone came along and gave it B status. Then I went to google it and couldn't find it only to learn that new pages have to be reviewed or wait 90 days. I didn't know that! Now I can't find it anywhere on the new pages to be reviewed list either! My creation [[Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal]] is lost in an alternate universe somewhere! Is there anything I can do to bring it home? I would like to volunteer to help with this whole review process thingy, but it looks a little overwhelming for a relative newby. There's so much I don't know. Wikipedia is a morass. :-) [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 21:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi there @[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]]. Your article is not lost. For an article to appear in Google, it needs to be checked by a member of New Page Patrol, have been more than 90 days since it was created, or created by a veteran editor who has a special right called "autopatroll". So for now your article is in this holding pattern. Right now the New Page feed has about 8700 articles in it. Articles are reviewed in no specific order by the volunteers. So it could get indexed as I'm typing this response or it might have to wait the 90 days to be indexed. The length of the article is about commendable - it looks comprehensive - but is also likely a deterrent to a fast review. One quick suggestion in passing: it looks like there is a paragraph that is [[WP:CLOP|closely paraphrased from]] [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html Frontline]. I would recommend rewriting that, any other place that may be similarly written. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Bless you! Thank you for responding so quickly and kindly. I will wait to see what happens. "Frontline" is actually directly quoted in a couple of places, yet on the detector it always shows up as a violation. I don't know why some quotes show up as copies while others don't, but it is appropriately quoted and referenced in the article itself - no violations - promise!!! So I guess I just wait, and that's okay, I just didn't know what was going on. I have learned something new again! Thank you! I am looking at volunteering to help out here - I'm just not sure I would know what to do. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 22:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::: [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Thank you for your help. I continue to impose on your patience. If you look here at Earwig, [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1054234201&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fpages%2Ffrontline%2Fshows%2Freligion%2Fwhy%2Fappeal.html] you can easily see that the Frontline excerpts are quotes that are appropriately set off, referenced and fully sourced. It says copyvio but it isn't. Earwig sometimes does that with quotes. |
|||
::: I went and put in my username to see the article's status and noted that someone marked the possibility of copyvio violations on it. On my draft, before finishing the article, Dianna deleted some material because I am too inexperienced in too many ways and didn't know that the copyvio rules didn't just apply to published articles - or rather, that everything on WP is in the public domain and is therefore considered published and is subject to those same rules. Those were fixed as soon as I was told. I note that Dianna did not say they had been fixed, should I go ask her to do so? Now I know better and write offsite, and import it in, only after carefully checking everything. There are no copyright violations in this article, I swear. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 04:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] as I said I only did a quick check here and so it is entirely possible that you've followed all our guidelines over COPYVIO. Thanks for your attention to the matter. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{Clear}} |
{{Clear}} |
||
Line 66: | Line 67: | ||
Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#Club_all_%22were_created_by%22_options_into_one_drop_down]] |
Discussion moved to [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#Club_all_%22were_created_by%22_options_into_one_drop_down]] |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Help please == |
== Help please == |
||
Line 76: | Line 78: | ||
:One script you might find useful is [[User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks]]. It gives you a bunch of helpful links on pages, including a "log" button that brings up the page's deletion log, which tells you when/why the page was deleted. Clicking "log" on [[Barbara Dawson]], for instance, shows you the 2008 AfD that Atsme mentioned above. It's not perfect, but it usually does a pretty good job. Cheers, [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 00:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
:One script you might find useful is [[User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks]]. It gives you a bunch of helpful links on pages, including a "log" button that brings up the page's deletion log, which tells you when/why the page was deleted. Clicking "log" on [[Barbara Dawson]], for instance, shows you the 2008 AfD that Atsme mentioned above. It's not perfect, but it usually does a pretty good job. Cheers, [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 00:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Dab page at NPP == |
== Dab page at NPP == |
||
Line 100: | Line 103: | ||
::If BITE and NPPNICE prevent us from having a discussion then fuck this shit I'm out of here. [[User:Styyx|<span style="color: #126180">'''~Styyx'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Styyx|<span style="color: #24d63f">''Talk''</span><span style="color:red">''?''</span>]]</sup> 11:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
::If BITE and NPPNICE prevent us from having a discussion then fuck this shit I'm out of here. [[User:Styyx|<span style="color: #126180">'''~Styyx'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Styyx|<span style="color: #24d63f">''Talk''</span><span style="color:red">''?''</span>]]</sup> 11:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Article Merges == |
== Article Merges == |
||
Line 121: | Line 125: | ||
:::::I have previously tagged with merge to and given a brief explanation why. Let the community sort out from there. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::::I have previously tagged with merge to and given a brief explanation why. Let the community sort out from there. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== New article banner == |
== New article banner == |
||
{{Tracked|T321179}} |
|||
Back in July, it seemed like extending NOINDEX on unreviewed articles was imminent. I proposed a maint message on unreviewed pages that would explain why the article was not visible in search engines and what could be done to improve the article and increase its chances of being reviewed and indexed. NOINDEX has been delayed, so this has been on the back-burner. We do expect NOINDEX to still happen, hopefully soon. |
Back in July, it seemed like extending NOINDEX on unreviewed articles was imminent. I proposed a maint message on unreviewed pages that would explain why the article was not visible in search engines and what could be done to improve the article and increase its chances of being reviewed and indexed. NOINDEX has been delayed, so this has been on the back-burner. We do expect NOINDEX to still happen, hopefully soon. |
||
Line 189: | Line 194: | ||
*'''Support''' #5 or something similarly small. The original proposal (#1) is far too big. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' #5 or something similarly small. The original proposal (#1) is far too big. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 16:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Minor redirect question == |
== Minor redirect question == |
||
Line 206: | Line 212: | ||
*:However, I do not think that would meet the language requirement for redirects. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 04:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
*:However, I do not think that would meet the language requirement for redirects. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 04:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
== Drafting == |
== Drafting == |
||
Line 422: | Line 429: | ||
:Are there any statistics for how big of an issue this actually is? Is there evidence of a backlog of the tagged redirects not being promptly deleted? Without statistics I'd lean oppose. Especially when people can request the pagemovers already permissions anyway. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
:Are there any statistics for how big of an issue this actually is? Is there evidence of a backlog of the tagged redirects not being promptly deleted? Without statistics I'd lean oppose. Especially when people can request the pagemovers already permissions anyway. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 14:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
: Hi, all. Sorry I disappeared for a couple of days, real life appeared right after I posted my initial comment... Thank you for all the conversation around this proposal. My concern is not just the burden on the admins, but also the clogging of the feed, since the current guidelines are to not remove a speedy deletion nomination until it has been deleted. Many of the nominations can sit for over 24 hours - which means they are touched by multiple NPP reviewers before being deleted. That being said, in light of the comments here I don't believe this proposal will go far right now. Thank you all for your comments! ~ [[User:Matthewrb | <span style="color:#5e0231;">Matthewrb</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Matthewrb | <span style="color:#e6af4b;">Talk to me</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Matthewrb | <span style="color:#111eb8;">Changes I've made</span>]]</sup> 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
: Hi, all. Sorry I disappeared for a couple of days, real life appeared right after I posted my initial comment... Thank you for all the conversation around this proposal. My concern is not just the burden on the admins, but also the clogging of the feed, since the current guidelines are to not remove a speedy deletion nomination until it has been deleted. Many of the nominations can sit for over 24 hours - which means they are touched by multiple NPP reviewers before being deleted. That being said, in light of the comments here I don't believe this proposal will go far right now. Thank you all for your comments! ~ [[User:Matthewrb | <span style="color:#5e0231;">Matthewrb</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Matthewrb | <span style="color:#e6af4b;">Talk to me</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/Matthewrb | <span style="color:#111eb8;">Changes I've made</span>]]</sup> 21:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{Clear}} |
|||
{{Clear}} |
{{Clear}} |
||
Line 462: | Line 471: | ||
:::::::Screenshot would be appreciated. I'll use it to identify your skin, see if I see anything abnormal, and see if I'm making a false assumption about something. I'm a developer for that software so I'd like to debug this so I can write a patch for it. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::Screenshot would be appreciated. I'll use it to identify your skin, see if I see anything abnormal, and see if I'm making a false assumption about something. I'm a developer for that software so I'd like to debug this so I can write a patch for it. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 09:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I've bobbed a screenshot on Commons: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScreenshotWikiNPP.png here] - clicking on the Set FIlters doesn't do anything, its as if the button isnt there. So there is no visual difference between them. I appreciate all the effort! [[User:Zakhx150|Zakhx150]] ([[User talk:Zakhx150|talk]]) 15:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::I've bobbed a screenshot on Commons: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ScreenshotWikiNPP.png here] - clicking on the Set FIlters doesn't do anything, its as if the button isnt there. So there is no visual difference between them. I appreciate all the effort! [[User:Zakhx150|Zakhx150]] ([[User talk:Zakhx150|talk]]) 15:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Interesting discussions == |
|||
There are some interesting discussions taking place which may have an effect on NPPers. I've been attempting to help to get the backlog back to reasonableness, and in reviewing certain articles, I've come across large blocks of uncited text. It has been my process if the article might be notable, or in some cases is definitely notable, to draftify those articles. I am not saying these articles need several sources, but are clearly notable (that's a different case, where I'll mark them reviewed and then add the more ref tag at the top -- then go back in a month or so to see if improvements have been made). These articles simply have large blocks of text, usually the bulk of the article, which are simply unsourced. I've felt it was less disruptive to move them to draft, than simply gutting the article. If the draftifying is objected to, at that point I'll remove the large blocks of texts, since I feel that [[WP:VERIFY]] is one of the most important policies on WP -- helping us ensure the quality of the project, as well as adding to our credibility. We had an issue similar to this last year or the year before, where an editor was making Canadian river articles, and adding large blocks of texts describing the course of the river, it's tributaries, etc. Without adding sources, or simply adding a link to database, which did not back up the information they were including. And I believe that also escalated to ANI, before it was resolved that [[WP:VERIFY]] is a pretty important concept. |
|||
But back to the discussions taking place. The first is [[User talk:Onel5969#Citing the route section on road articles]], there is a link in that to the second discussion on the Roads project, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles]]. And finally, there's [[User talk:Rschen7754#WP:Verify, etc.|this brief discussion]], as well as [[User talk:Floydian#Onel5969|this]] where there's an admin threatening to block me for following policy. Now, looking at this, I bring it up, since I am most likely going to get attacked for following policy, but honestly, I do not know how to review without using policy as the bedrock for reviews. Regardless, I intend to continue reviewing until we get this backlog manageable, but I refuse to ignore policy. I know other reviewers have differing views (since one of the folks disagreeing with my is an NPPer, although not very active). Perhaps someone here could point out to me if I indeed am missing the point. Sorry to blather on. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 11:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I follow the exact same process. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 12:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::What article is it particularly? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 12:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[M18 road (Pretoria)]] [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I must say I am taken aback and somewhat annoyed by the statements Rschen7754 is making [[User_talk:Imzadi1979#WP:VERIFY|here]] and [[User_talk:Rschen7754#WP:Verify,_etc.|here]]. {{tq|Quite frankly, your actions were a net negative as they removed content and alienated an editor in an underrepresented topic (South Africa).}} - {{tq|If this is such a big deal, then why didn't you go ahead and add the citations yourself?}} - my aunt Fanny. Why are we getting these statements from an administrator who a) should be aware that enforcing a [[WP:VERIFY|fundamental policy]] is more important than following [[WP:TIND|an essay]], and b) that obliging new page patrollers to "just go and find the sources yourself" is a recipe for getting NPP productivity and participation down to zero? We do triage, that means excision and/or draftifying to prevent unsourced stuff in mainspace. - Having said that, if you are heading into conflict you want to keep your ducks in a row; talk page use, formal warnings, and punting things upstairs when 3RR is looming. It's no good getting strung up on the strength of incidentals when you are right in principle. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 14:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::And now of course it's at ANI: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969]].[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 15:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, Elmidae, sage advice. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oh, good grief. NPP off to ANI for removing OR and uncited material in a careful and considered manner? What next? Luckily, I think this one's a clear WP:SNOWBALL... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 16:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::And possibly a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] but it's nothing more than a new user having discovered ANI and being a bit over enthusiastic with the power it gives editors over other editors. Do rally round and support {{u|Onel5969}} there by all means because if we lose him we'll be in a pickle, but also to underline our policies more than anything else but I don't think {{u|Roads4117}} needs more than a big trout, well, this time anyway. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for that... not really concerned about the ANI (although it's a pain), but was more concerned with the assault on the policy, VERIFY. I also found the fact of an admin encouraging an ANI action for this very troubling. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 17:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Oh dear, that ANI exploded very quickly... I see reasonable arguments on both sides, but I'd prefer not go too deep down that rabbit hole. Admittedly, roads aren't the most contentious subject, so in some cases it may suffice to slap on {{tl|unreferenced}}, {{tl|more citations needed}}, or {{tl|citation needed}} (especially if a quick [[WP:BEFORE]] suggests that the necessary sources may exist), then check back and remove if necessary, and leave a friendly talk page message if any one editor is habitually creating such articles. Verifiability is indeed one of the core policies, but when BLP, quotations, stats, etc. are not involved, IMO there's little harm in a grace period and taking a step back. I see that {{u|Roads4117}} has already received messages on several occasions about sourcing, though also said at the ANI that {{tq|it says on my userpage this user recognizes the importance of citing sources. This is true - I just need a little bit of help/guidance for which references to use for what etc.}} – much more strongly suggestive of confusion. In any case, the burden on NPP is not to add sources, merely determine whether they have a strong likelihood of existing (pass or fail). {{u|Onel5969}}, given how the ANI blew up (even if you're not concerned about the outcome), I might suggest reviewing other articles in the meantime to not give an impression of singling out one editor's work (this is not a feeling only newcomers experience). I second {{u|Elmidae}}'s wisdom above as well – NPP is overburdened enough with thankless work as things stand and upholding [[WP:V]] is a critical aspect of that work. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I edit in queue order, nothing else. In the last 16 days I've reviewed 2 of the pages this editor has worked on. I've reviewed hundreds of articles during that stretch, and I had never interacted with them prior to that. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 21:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Fair enough, I hadn't done a detailed examination of the log. Your chipping away at the backlog is, as always, appreciated. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 01:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Chipping away? He appears to be armed with a chainsaw.... [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 02:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::A chainsaw is just as valid a woodworking tool as a chisel and mallet, see [[Chainsaw carving]]. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The new challenges facing the reviewers == |
|||
We've discussed the exponential growth in the expansion of the Internet in some regions and the availability of low-cost smart phones there - well noted that we got some flak from two users who boldly accused us of "xenophobia and racism" for mentioning it in the first draft of the Open Letter - but [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/india-engineers-are-helping-to-keep-wikipedia-inclusive/articleshow/93893944.cms this excellent article] in August by Akhil George in ''The Times of India'', one of the country's most respected newspapers, makes no bones about it: "India recently became the second largest contributor to the English Wikipedia after the US". |
|||
If that doesn't confirm the need for reviewers who can read sources in Indic languages and who understand [[MOS:COMMONALITY]], I don't know what does. Any campaigns to recruit new reviewers should bear this in mind, but we want to avoid another [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione|Wifione]] (former admin) which is another reason why reviewers should always be on their mettle and '''not patrol too quickly''' - and why admins should be sure to do in-depth due diligence before according the reviewer right. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 21:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Rapid progress == |
|||
Based on the number from yesterday, we should be able to clear the backlog this month at this rate, amazingly! (Of course that rate isn't sustainable though as people will burn-out.) -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:A zero backlog may be attainable towards the end of the drive. That'd be amazing for morale. I participated in a 2021 AFC backlog drive that achieved zero backlog and it felt amazing. Let's see what we can do! –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 12:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::And I'm about to graduate another reviewer here shortly!! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 16:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Woohoo. Atsme doing a fantastic job with training as always :) –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== NPP is in ''The Signpost'' - again == |
|||
''The Signpost'' September issue was published a few minutes ago. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|This month's 'In focus' column]] is dedicated to NPP and also includes a reprint of the Open Letter appeal that was signed by a total of 444 editors. As yet there has been no official response on the page for replies to the letter which was published earlier this month on Meta and Wikipedia, and personally notified to around 80 members of the senior WMF staff and Board of Trustees. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 01:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
The article [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|about NPP]] had the highest number of visits on the first day of publication. It didn't generate a lot of comments but nor did any other articles. User comments were supportive. The WMF left a long speech instead of replying to the letter in the right place. They had clearly not read their emails and had confused the Open Letter action with an article about it in a newspaper. The Board of Trustees has not made any public acknowledgment to either the letter or the ''Signpost'' article. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Excellent article, Kudz, MB & NL!! I commented there, but the comments that were already there before I arrived cover it pretty well. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 16:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Nice article, y'all. Going forward it'll probably be wise to play into some of the WMF's priorities and sympathies, for example by focusing on new users and especially foreign-language users. How discouraging is it for, say, aspiring Indian- or African-language users to get all their contributions turned down or deleted, and only after 3 months (due to some backlog), without opportunity for improvement? That might sway them harder than a focus on the experiences of established editors and overall encyclopedic quality (even though we may weigh these higher). [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 20:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's already being done {{u|Ovinus}}, including the WMF's major current development for onboarding new mobile phone users. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 00:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Keeping a log of AFD, CSD and others that you nominated using Page curation == |
|||
{{Tracked|T207237}} |
|||
Nominating new articles for AFD, CSD, and others using Page curation does not keep a log. Is there a way to activate it or is it only Twinkle that logs these nominations? '''''[[user:Idoghor Melody|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:blue; text-shadow:blue 0.9em 0.9em 0.9em;">Comr Melody Idoghor</span>]]''''' [[User talk:Idoghor Melody|<span style="color:Navy">'''''(talk)'''''</span>]] 08:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Hey there. This is a good idea and a ticket exists for it. [[phab:T207237]]. Unfortunately new features are harder than bug fixes so volunteer devs haven't gotten around to this one yet. If our [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] succeeds, perhaps WMF devs can code this. Thank you for the idea. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 09:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It would be even better if it used the same logging mechanism as Twinkle, getting compatible log pages. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. No need to reinvent the wheel. My suggested implementation is for it to read twinkleoptions.js and basically do exactly what Twinkle does. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Wow == |
|||
I am so proud of all of you.... the backlog between 1/1/2020 and 4/30/2022 is .... 0. (There's one article there, but it's prodded). Great job folks. As the bard said, "I am amazed and know not what to do." [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Says you! [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::We definitely have reason to be proud or our little [[File:SMirC-super.svg|x20px|\S/]] reviewers!! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 22:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Quirk with curation == |
|||
I'm not sure where this is best raised, so feel free to point me elsewhere, but I wanted to get some eyes on an issue with Page Curation, which describes [[User:Juandissimo1]] as a possible attack page for reasons that aren't obvious (and blatantly faulty). <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The "possible spam/vandalism/attack predictions, are also from [[WP:ORES]]." I don't know if they really have any meaning on a User page. I would just ignore them. User pages don't need to be patrolled in the first place. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 21:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Which makes me wonder, why hasn't the patrol/review option been removed from user pages? [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 12:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm in favor of it, but it has not achieved consensus yet. You and others, please feel free to weigh in at [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Remove userspace from Special:NewPagesFeed?]]. If enough folks support, I'll create a Phabricator ticket. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 14:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Voiced my support. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It uses machine learning to decide when to apply the tag. Clearly machines wont be replacing humans anytime soon :) –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 21:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== PageTriage AFD bug is probably fixed == |
|||
Those of you that often get the "I tagged for AFD with Page Curation toolbar and it did everything except make the AFD page" bug, please run the software through its paces and see if you can reproduce it. Pretty good chance it's fixed this time. In the event of great success, all credit goes to {{u|Chlod}}. In the event of great failure, we will all run and hide, making it hard for you to lodge your complaints! :) –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:thanks for posting this--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit summaries? == |
|||
Why there's no edit summary [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1114878110 on this edit]? ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:SteelBlue">The Aafī on Mobile</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:#80A0FF"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]]</sup> 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|AafiOnMobile}} See [[phab:T319121]] for the Phabricator task. [[User:GeoffreyT2000|GeoffreyT2000]] ([[User talk:GeoffreyT2000|talk]]) 20:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== RfC of interest to this project: How should we manage mass article creation? == |
|||
There is an RfC in progress at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale]] about how the community should approach mass creations of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 == |
|||
Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, |
|||
[[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|thumb|right|120px]] |
|||
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|current issue of ''The Signpost'']]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section. |
|||
'''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]]. Check out the new [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]] also. |
|||
|
|||
'''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Phab_tickets#Closed_tickets|here]]. The [[Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers|reviewer report]] has also been improved. |
|||
[[File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg|thumb|450px|right|NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022]] |
|||
'''Suggestions''': |
|||
*There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed". |
|||
*Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care|NPP tutorial]]) |
|||
*Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue. |
|||
*This [[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|user script]] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar. |
|||
'''Backlog''':[[File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif|80px|left]] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|October backlog drive]] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate! |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
;Reminders |
|||
*Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. |
|||
*If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers. |
|||
*Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist. |
|||
*If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]]. |
|||
*To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]]. |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
<!-- Drafted by User:MB --> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1114894896 --> |
|||
: {{tq|an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation}} - I realized I've not been in compliance with this when it comes to G4, my thinking being that if a past discussion has decided the topic is not notable nothing can be done about it and waiting gives false hope. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to clarify this still excludes G1/G3/G10/G11/G12 or has the policies changed? Per [[WP:NPP]], {{tq|Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.}} '''[[User:VickKiang|<span style="background:#FFFFFF; color:blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">VickKiang</span>]] '''[[User talk:VickKiang|<span style="background:#FFFFFF; color:light blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">(talk)</span>]] 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::What you quoted is correct. I imagine it was made more concise for the newsletter. Anything serious/egregious such as G10 should still be tagged immediately. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, this probably was too concise, it should have said "(see tutorial for exceptions)." [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 04:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Old backlog == |
|||
I've been doing this for a little while now, and I group articles into categories: 1 - new articles - day or two old; 2 - front of the queue - up to 30 days old; Prime reviewing - 31-90 days old; old articles - over 90 days, up to a year old; and very old articles. In my time here, I've never seen the Very old backlog at zero before. Not only did we accomplish that, the backlog of what I would consider Old articles also hit zero for the first time I can remember. Now, of course, I'm not including articles that are in the process of prods/AfDs, etc. But wow. |
|||
[[File:NPP.221013.jpg|thumb|Today's Queue]] [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Our current NPP team: [[File:SMirC-super.svg|x20px|\S/]] !!! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*This is truly extraordinary! Never in all these 12 years did I expect to see a zero queue. - congratulations to all who contributed to this amazing feat! You'll all be pleased to know that while you've been slaving away, some of us are working hard to push for new, upgraded software that will make patrolling more pleasurable, encourage more patrolers to do more reviewing, and ultimately keep the queue within tolerable limits. Thank you all again 🙏🏼 [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Has the backlog hit zero already? {{ping|Onel5969}} In your screenshot it looks like it's filtered to just creations by one user? We're at 334 now, though, so today could be the day... – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Dang... wrong screen shot. That filter was for just one user, but at that moment in time. it was also zero for all users as well, up through 8/31. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 10:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Question about google search == |
|||
This may be the wrong venue to ask, but here it goes. . . . I created the article "[[Robert Searight]]" in May and it passed NPP review in July. Why doesn't the page show in a google search? For example it doesn't come up when I search for "Wikipedia Robert Searight". Thanks in advance. [[User:Bammesk|Bammesk]] ([[User talk:Bammesk|talk]]) 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Hey @[[User:Bammesk|Bammesk]], Just because Google and other search engines can see and index the article doesn't mean they'll display it. It does look like some index servers have recorded that it's there. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=spider&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Robert_Searight Check this link out.] Hope that clears things up. '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#7a1dfc; color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Dr_vulpes|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dr_vulpes|📝]])</sup> 01:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Wow, backlog down to 2k == |
|||
Incredible job – all I can say is please leave us some unreviewed pages for NPPSCHOOL exercises! [[File:SMirC-chuckle.svg|x20px|^_^]] CONGRATULATIONS, REVIEWERS. I will be happy to buy a round for all of you at the next in-person WikiCon!!!! [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 12:21, October 11, 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Mine's a pint of Chartreuse... (others are WAY more deserving of libations, mind...) Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 16:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Chartreuse only comes in [https://www.sportfishingmag.com/gear/the-pros-of-chartreuse-lures/ single, double or treble...] [[File:SMirC-chuckle.svg|x20px|^_^]] [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Great job to everybody contributing! Looks like those in the backlog drive are going to need to re-review articles to keep busy instead of just reviewing new articles. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*When was the last time the backlog was this low? Not sure I remember it ever being under 2000. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 21:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Back in 2018 or so, we dipped below 2000 for a few days I believe. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 00:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::Might have been 2019. I think we made a real mistake in not getting it to zero (if only momentarily) there because I suspect that would have some large psychological benefits and help with efforts to keep the queue longterm down. While I am not actively contributing to reviewing at the moment a huge congratulations and I genuinely hope the team can get it the rest of the way. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Newsletter 12|July 2018]] newsletter says that we hit 500 in June of that year. There was a backlog drive then too. -[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] ([[User talk:MPGuy2824|talk]]) 02:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Interesting, thanks. I only started NPP in 2020 so it seems very exciting to me! [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 05:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
@[[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]], @[[User:Onel5969|Onel5969]], @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]], @[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]]. The longer term chart of the backlog is up on my user page (copied below). It hit nearly zero in mid 2018. It was around ~2000 in 2021 at one point as well. Both were very brief downspikes though. Hopefully we can manage to get it down and keep it down this time. |
|||
There was also some prior manual data that I had added to the first chart below if you want to see what the pre-2018 backlog looked like. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2|width=900|height=480}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart|width=900|height=480|weekly}} |
|||
These two charts show all the data going back as far as we have records for. MusikAnimal didn't include the manual data (first chart) in the automated chart (second chart) when he made it since he didn't trust it (some of the early data was based on comments here and elsewhere that I scoured and collected where people where commenting on what the backlog was doing). — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 22:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:awesome work! --[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 23:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Nicely done... very interesting. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 13:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*And now we slip under 1,500... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 04:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*under 1,000--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 12:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*:Under 100! — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 02:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Wow, this is the first time in my almost 4 years here that I've seen the backlog go to double digits. Major credit to everyone who has participated. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] It hasn't ever been this low as long as I've been at NPP (since around 2017). I remember seeing a message somewhere that the backlog was near zero back in 2016 sometime though, so at least 6 years, maybe more. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 06:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Stuck pages needing review == |
|||
{{tracked|T321322}} |
|||
Hi all — some testing has uncovered a few pages which are unable to be marked as reviewed due to a bug. These are: |
|||
* [[Body of light]] (c. 2006) {{done}} |
|||
* [[Demographics of Northern Cyprus]] (c. 2008) {{done}} |
|||
* [[List of Norwegian football transfers summer 2014]] (c. 2014) {{done}} |
|||
* [[Lilian Shelley]] (c. 2014) {{done}} |
|||
* [[2018 Miami Open]] (c. 2018) {{done}} |
|||
* [[2019 FireKeepers Casino 400]] (c. 2019) {{done}} |
|||
* [[2020 PDC Home Tour]] (c. 2020) {{done}} |
|||
On a quick review, these all seem to be pages which would be marked now as "reviewed". <s>I'd like to propose, technical restrictions notwithstanding, that these are manually (i.e. via a database change) marked as reviewed. Seeing as NPP reviewers are the editors who ''would'' have marked such pages as reviewed, I believe it proper to ask your permission and gain your consensus to do so, instead of just "fixing it" as a technical hiccup.</s> {{ping|Novem Linguae}} Pinging just so you're aware of this proposal. — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 11:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Is it a chrome bug? [[Body of light]] is good. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 11:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nope, not a front end bug. Likely a back end bug in PageTriage [[PHP]] somewhere. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I just marked [[Lilian Shelley]] as reviewed without issue. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[List of Norwegian football transfers summer 2014]] I can't do though. I've not looked at the others. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]]: Interesting.. I just made a null edit to that page and ''was then'' able to mark it reviewed — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 11:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Oohh, you're right, [[Body of light]] ''is'' now showing reviewed... can you try [[Demographics of Northern Cyprus]]? I'm on Firefox, but I've not tried with another browser.... — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 11:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:🤦♀️ like all good bugs, this seems to have fixed itself ''just'' as I make a public fool of myself! — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 11:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:If needed, we can skip pre-reviewing by fixing the bug, then putting these pages back in the queue again. In theory after our fix the review button would work :) –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 11:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I've made null edits to the remaining 3 pages, but will leave marking them as reviewed to an actual reviewer :) — [[User:TheresNoTime|TheresNoTime]] ([[User talk:TheresNoTime|talk]] • they/them) 11:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. Done. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Error with R2 tagging? == |
|||
There's a bunch of redirects that reviewers have tagged [[User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js|via draftify user script]] for speedy deletion under [[WP:CSD R2|CSD R2]] (inappropriate cross-namespace redirects) that can be found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Candidates+for+speedy+deletion+as+inappropriate+cross-namespace+redirects&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 here], yet none of them are included in [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]] or [[:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects]]. A few of these were tagged for speedy deletion up to 24 hours ago (e.g. [[Korea TV]] and [[Terry Gudaitis]]). [[User:Bennv123|Bennv123]] ([[User talk:Bennv123|talk]]) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:seems to have been done--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 12:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:Bennv123|Bennv123]] is right. I meant to follow up on this post but I never got around to it. I did see the same thing that Bennv123 did. I cleared cache several times but I was still not seeing several recently tagged redirects appearing. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 12:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::This issue only seems to affect redirects tagged via [[User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js|this draftify user script]], so I guess that's where the problem lies. Pages tagged for R2 deletion manually or via [[WP:TW|Twinkle]] show up just fine in the speedy deletion categories. [[User:Bennv123|Bennv123]] ([[User talk:Bennv123|talk]]) 20:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::There might be something unusual about how the draftify user script does its page editing. PageTriage bug [[phab:T321192]] only occurs when the draftify script is used to place {{t|Db-r2}}, and smells similar to what is going on here. It just has a different symptom (the tag being invisible to PageTriage's Special:NewPagesFeed, instead of the tag being invisible to categories). –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 23:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Drafts#WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose|Wikipedia talk:Drafts § WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose]]== |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Drafts#WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose|Wikipedia talk:Drafts § WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
:Most Wikipedia guidelines and help pages are verbose, ''and'' hence often ambiguous; this does not help the exponentially increasing number of non native English speakers who try to submit new articles. They should be concise, but explicit, i.e. giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive. OTOH, a few are so scant as to be almost meaningless and just invite a quick click-'next'-and-mpve-on. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 02:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== And then there were none... == |
|||
(with apologies to [[Agatha Christie]]... |
|||
[[File:NPP Queue 10-20-22.png|thumb]] |
|||
And yes, {{u|Joe Roe}}, I did doublecheck my filters this time. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 13:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Genuinely historic. Congratulations all! – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 13:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Incredible! I never suspected I would see a zero backlog when I saw the monster of it back in June when I was training under {{np|Atsme}}. Thank you to all of the active patrollers who took part in this! —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#058700">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 13:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow. And now we will get to find out about the latency of this particular process :) --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 14:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, seriously. I haven't seen this since I first started doing reviews almost a decade ago. I hardly remember what it was like to run out of pages to review and have to wait for somebody to publish something! [[User_talk:Asukite|<span style="color:Purple;font-size:medium;font-family:Bradley Hand ITC"> ASUKITE</span>]] 15:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I remember mad numbers - 14,000? More? And now a shiny, clean stable smelling of cheap pine disinfectant! '''Well done''', all you Herculean folk! Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 15:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Well done, team! I'd like to say now, "a review a day keeps the backlog away" if we can maintain this level of commitment. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:What amazing teamwork! I am a new reviewer who joined the team a few months ago during the peak of the backlog (but I've been an editor on WP for a while). I am thoroughly impressed with the NPP community, and am grateful to many of the editors here for your help and guidance and answering my various questions and pointing out my mistakes. When I first joined NPP, I thought, "uh oh, this is the short cut to insanity" and that maybe I wasn't cut out for it. But time an again I witnessed how editors work together here and I have one word for you all: RESPECT!<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Netherzone|Netherzone]] ([[User talk:Netherzone#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Netherzone|contribs]]) 16:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:well done!!!--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 17:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This is amazing, well done to all! -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 17:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Congrats team! And special thanks to those heavy lifters (you know who you are), and thanks to the newcomers that have been doing the good slog (I even came out of retirement to do a few reviews last night as well, just to feel part of the moment ;). We are still in 80/20 territory with the reviewrs, but the 20 has gotten a lot more diverse recently. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 01:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it's quite amazing. I can state that it's never been done before (yes, I've been around that long). It makes a change from the 36,000 backlog we had before the user right was rolled out. In order to keep it this way we're working on a project that will not only make Page Curation more streamlined, but will also better educate the creators in several more friendly ways. Our Open Letter has had the desired effect and we now have the full attention the top people in command. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Amazing is an understatement. We have an excellent team, and it is growing. In addition to having bright reviewers, I credit camaraderie (at Discord), kinship & a bit more confidence after graduating NPPSCHOOL. We learn the basics in school, and the real life, hands-on experience verifies what we've learned and sets our course. Just my thoughts... [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 12:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*And now the question: How long can we keep it under 100? What record number of days/weeks/months can we manage? — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 06:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Signs of COI/UPE == |
|||
'''redacted''' |
|||
— [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:As per the discussion above and {{u|Kudpung}}'s reference to a [[Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose|guidebook]]. Might I suggest you delete this comment? This is something that should be talked about off-wiki with other patrollers, so as to not give UPE editors guidance on how to go hidden. Just a thought. Good ideas.[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 22:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I've redacted it. Personally, I don't think many COI/UPE people would think to look up this sort of stuff on this noticeboard, but I'll hide it. — [[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]] [[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thank you. You'd be surprised. I once had a UPE editor say to me on his UPE notice... "I didn't _______, so why would you think I was a UPE". Where the blank is one of the obvious giveaways. Obviously, they had read some talkpage about how we look for them. Regardless, nice ideas, keep up the good work. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 23:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Let’s forget about the backlog == |
|||
Great work getting the backlog removed and the queue down to zero. Now can we forget about it for a bit? It’s tempting to focus on staying close to zero when that’s not our purpose. Editors need time to improve their articles and we have 90 days to do our work in. If NPP now turns into a zapathon it will just piss a lot of people off, so let’s not be too hasty with draftifying where that’s appropriate. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 10:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I, for one, agree. My concept of patrolling has always been that their should be 3 steps. Step 1: at the front of the queue, the speedy deletes need to be removed (G1-5, 10-12). That all other problems should be tagged and left unreviewed. Step 2: Articles reviewed after 1-2 weeks, this is when prod/AfD/or draftify comes into play. Step 3: Articles greater than 90 days - obviously this step is not needed with such a low queue, but it was similar to step 2, just with older articles. Now it will be limited to articles that have been created from stubs, or articles coming from AfC or draft/userspace.[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that sounds like a good working rhythm. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 11:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I left out an incredibly important part of Step 1: obvious "marked reviewed". Duh. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 11:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Notwithstanding the amazing current shortage of pages to review, are we saying that NPP has ''not'' recently been a zapathon? According to the massive complaints on the VP, NPP and AfC reviewers are the destroyers of the Wiki and driving all the nice newbies away. At least with what we are trying to achieve now with the WMF, one of the days zapathons will hopefully become a thing the past. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:@[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] I mean... some newbies want their articles reviewed quickly. Sometimes they even come here to request it. I say we get out the gatling zapper and spray. Realistically, we should neither be too hasty, nor be too reticent to review, and we should give creators time to write obviously unfinished articles. The vast majority though? They can get sprayed by the gatling zapper. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 11:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Insertcleverphrasehere|ICPH}}: {{tq|I mean... some newbies want their articles reviewed quickly.}} You mean within a week instead of three months, or in 15 seconds instead of a zapper's 30 seconds:? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 11:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] If you have put in the effort of writing a good article, with lots of sources, it feels like vindication for a reviewer to snap off the review. If an article is in a 'finished' or semi-polished state, there is no reason to delay review. As for reviewing in 15 seconds, I'll often do this myself, as I can plainly see that this is an article that I can review, and I am planning on going through all my normal steps of the review, but I want to remove it from the queue so that I don't end up doubling up with another reviewer. It can be somewhat annoying when reviewing the front of the queue to have two people hitting the buttons at the same time, not to mention the wasted effort of two (or more) people doing BEFORE searches simultaneously. |
|||
::::{{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart|width=600|height=200|hourly}} |
|||
::::Also, I just realised that there is an 'hourly' chart (it isn't hourly, it's only updated a few times a day, but it shows the last week in close detail). Very satisfying. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 12:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*There was a perfect case in point in this morning's queue, [[Now, Follow Me]]. When created it was two uncited lines. I looked at about 5 minutes after reviewed. Did not tag it, as I felt this could be something in the process of development, sure enough about 10 minutes later the article was fleshed out to the point where, while not a great article, was enough to pass review. If I treated it like an article that had been around for a week, it would have been zapped.[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 11:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Journalists have a skill for writing polished pieces with a raft of references. [[Sonia Saleem|Such articles]] make me immediately su$piciou$... [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agree. Been speedied. But your issue is deeper. COI/UPE is where I struggle mightily. Unless it's an obvious case, I might miss it. And I guess I'm a bit gun-shy at ANI about being too aggressive in tagging for COI/UPE unless it is obvious. I'd suggest someone write an essay on how to spot it, but why give potential UPE's a guidebook for getting around it. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 13:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I understand. I and one or two others have a fairly accurate gut feeling for a COI or a UPE, but it takes time to make a watertight case. It also often needs tools which I don't have so I don't bother doing it much these days. Not giving them a [[WP:BEANS|guide book]] is precisely why we keep our methods under wraps. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think now that we're hovering around zero it should (hopefully) be easier to both stay on top of newly created articles ''and'' give them the time/space to develop as Onel and Kudpung suggest. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: Well if patrolers get board with not much to do, AfC has climbed back up to 3000 and always need more help. Regards [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 16:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Tasks that need doing == |
|||
Following is a list of requests for tools we need that have not been fulfilled at phab: |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124396 T124396] - Allow moving to draftspace and tagging accordingly (keywords: draft, draftify, draftification) |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T207437 T207437] - Add a Special:NewPagesFeed auto-refresh, similar to Watchlist's "Live Updates" |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157048 T157048] - Redirects converted into articles should appear in the New Pages Feed indexed by the date of creation and creator of the article, not of the redirect |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T168350 T168350] - Page curation marking pages with citations as having no citations |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T313650 T313650] - Expanded info on previous deletions |
|||
#[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T310974 T310974] - Extend PageTriage MaxAge for unpatrolled articles at enwiki – per the outcome of the RfC it was "indefinite" |
|||
#[[phab:T313645]] - [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/growth-team/ moved to Growth Team board] - When reviewing, make posting to article talk page optional |
|||
#[[phab:T315930]] moved to Growth Team board: Tool to create talk page and tag WikiProjects |
|||
#[[phab:T315206]] moved to Growth Team board: Autopatrolled reviewer tagging a redirect as CSD should not autopatrol the resulting article |
|||
#[[phab:T316301]] moved to Growth Team board: Add Special:NewPagesFeed filter "Nominated for AFD/RFD" |
|||
#[[phab:T315591]] moved to Growth Team board: Bug report: Regression: Undeleted mainspace articles are not added to the PageTriage queue |
|||
[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 10:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Context: This is from [[User talk:Atsme#NPP bugs & requests]]. cc {{u|MPGuy2824}} |
|||
:I'm happy to report that most of these are already internally prioritized by us. You can tell because they have tags like "PageTriage (soon)" and "PageTriage (code review)", instead of "PageTriage (backlog)". I am in charge of the PageTriage tag at the moment. |
|||
:The growth team tag can be ignored. They don't currently do much work on PageTriage, and have no specific PageTriage work scheduled. |
|||
:There are 4 tickets on your list that are not prioritized by me yet. I'll go ahead and move them to "PageTriage (soon)". You can view the entire "PageTriage (soon)" list [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/541/ here]. These are the issues I plan to ask the WMF to work on in our meeting in November. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|Kudpung}} - FYI...[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 19:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks {{u|Atsme}} - I get notified of every single post that's made to this page. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 23:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draftify things, or improve-in-situ]]== |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draftify things, or improve-in-situ]], which discusses on potential improvements when drafting articles. '''[[User:VickKiang|<span style="background:#FFFFFF; color:blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">VickKiang</span>]] '''[[User talk:VickKiang|<span style="background:#FFFFFF; color:light blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">(talk)</span>]] 06:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: I mean, I ''read'' it - huge and all it is, as usual, but good grief, what's the ''point'' of it??? There's no proposal as such... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 06:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::But…but…but DELETION BY THE BACK DOOR!!!!!!<[[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry, pardon? What is deletion by the back door? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 05:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The pet theory of those editors who are against draft space. They generally start off saying they’re against hasty/repeated/inappropriate draftification but as discussions unfold it often turns out they’re just against the whole concept. I expect that after years of insisting “take it to AfD”, if they succeed in removing the safe harbour of draftspace they’ll probably then start complaining “but you’re all DELETIONISTS!”. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 06:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I ''like'' draftspace. I think it should apply until extended confirmed, personally. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 08:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Strawmen arguments and us vs. them mentality. Always helpful. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I hate the idea that some people consider draftification (telling someone they need to work on the article) somehow less bitey than tagging for CSD, PROD, or AfD. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 11:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I have recently taken to adding an offer - where it's appropriate (ie when there's clear potential value in the article) for the author to ping me and I'll review the submission to avoid the queue. I'm not sure if that's 'naughty' per policy, but I feel it takes any bite out of the process. I add the offer to the template or just go to their talk page. It feels 'better'... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 12:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*When I was asking {{tq|What is deletion by the back door? }} it was naturally a cynical rhetorical question. Complaints against all aspects of NPP come and go in cycles. This month's flavour is 'moving to draft'. Next month will be AfD. Around Christmas it will probably be BLPPROD. The only common denominator is that most of the anti NPP crowd are either newbies or very old inclusionists who haven't done any patrolling for yonks or never done any at all, or WMF staff masquerading as volunteers and suggesting that NPP is a superfluous process (diffs available going back to 2010). Fazit? Well, I wholly concur with {{ping|Mccapra|Alexandermcnabb}}. OTOH, {{u|Hey man im josh}}, it depends how draftification is done. There are several options. The one I use isn't bitey at all, but at the end ofthe day the onus is on the crreators to submit policy compliant articles. Hey, wait - isn't that the fault of the WMF for not creating a proper landing page? [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Wait, we're ''bad guys''??? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 12:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
"Draftification" covers many scenarios, but I assuming we're talking about an article that has not established wp:notability. Draftification both provides the opportunity and responsibility for the GNG source search task to the article creator/proponent. It is different than AFD, not a "back door" to it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Insect Invasion == |
|||
Well the queue has just exploded because [[User:BilledMammal]] redirected a huge number of insect stubs and [[User:Elmidae]] reverted, bringing hundreds into the queue. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:That's annoying. There's a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Undiscussed mass article merging and redirection by BilledMammal]] about this. I'm in the process of helping to clear these out. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, sorry about that :/ One of the uncommon occasions when the redirect un-review mechanism rather bites. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hey you have nothing to be sorry about, you didn't cause this issue. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 18:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I can start helping to clean up in an hour or so. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Between myself and a couple other editors we got them all taken care of. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks all, looks debugged :) --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Something similar has happened with [[User:Boca Jóvenes|Boca Jóvenes]] having redirected the cricketer articles and then self-reverting the redirections. That has also led to hundreds of articles being added to the queue. [[User:GeoffreyT2000|GeoffreyT2000]] ([[User talk:GeoffreyT2000|talk]]) 20:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::And as I have already told this person at least TWICE, I made a mistake and I '''rectified''' it. 187 is not "hundreds". I would suggest [[WP:JUSTDROPIT]] is applicable here. [[User:Boca Jóvenes|<span style="color:blue"><b><i>BoJó</i></b></span>]] | [[User talk:Boca Jóvenes|<span style="color:yellow"><b>talk</b></span>]] UTC 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposal to change the default filters for fresh NPPers == |
|||
Currently, the default filters shown to a fresh New Page Patroller are "State (Reviewed, Unreviewed), Type (Nominated for deletion, All others)". You can check this out by logging out of Wikipedia and then going to [[Special:NewPagesFeed]]. This doesn't make sense to me, and i think we should show such folk only the pages in the article and redirect backlogs i.e. things that they can work on immediately. I propose the following changes: |
|||
# Remove reviewed pages. (may already be default) |
|||
# Remove "Nominated for deletion". ([[phab:T321953]]) |
|||
# Show redirects in addition to articles. ([[phab:T42135]]) |
|||
I've purposely separated these out, in case folk think that not all three are good to do. This will not affect any reviewer who has changed their filter options, only fresh NPPers; and even they can change these filter defaults, whenever they want. -[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] ([[User talk:MPGuy2824|talk]]) 08:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Makes sense to me. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 11:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree, seems sensible. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 12:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::P.S. I agree more strongly with #1 and #2 than #3, for the reason MB said below. -[[User:Kj cheetham|Kj cheetham]] ([[User talk:Kj cheetham|talk]]) 16:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree with #1 & #2. [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#Redirects_-_issue_4|#3]] has had an open phab since 2012. I'm not sure about this one. Reviewing articles and redirects is different. I always set my filters to do one or the other; although I know others keep them mixed. It may be better for a new reviewer to start out focusing on one or the other as well, and we almost always need more help with articles. I think that a lack of consensus is why this has been open for 10 years. [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 14:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:agree as well--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 15:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Just to double check, I'm interpreting this as being just about default filter settings. |
|||
*Change #1 Support...Makes sense |
|||
*Change #2 Support....Makes sense |
|||
*Change #3 IMO probably not a good idea. Redirects are a different and specialty skill set / rulebook than normal NPP. Suggest not flooding a newbie's feed with those |
|||
Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*I have no issue with #1 & #2, as that is how I have my settings now anyway. And if I can go in and remove the redirects, or show only the redirects (like I currently can), than I have no issue with #3, if that's what most folks want.[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 22:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Just to reiterate: This proposal will not affect current NPPers (or their settings) at all. This is only for the first time that an NPPer looks at the filters in Special:NewPagesFeed. -[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] ([[User talk:MPGuy2824|talk]]) 02:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::My bad, I misunderstood that. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== AfD == |
|||
It comes as a huge relief that the AfD bug has now been resolved. No more switching back and forth between Page Curation and Twinkle. A big round of applause please for '''{{u|Novem Linguae}}''' and any other ''volunteers'' who helped him pull this rabbit out of the hat. Let's hope he will send the bill to the WMF. The whole issue was another example of the blatant refusals of the WMF to address bugs in the software they built and telling us to clear off and do it ourselves (diffs available). Fortunately thanks to our open letter things are hopefully going to change. Fingers crossed. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Full credit to {{u|Chlod}} for [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/P35364 cracking this bug] and [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage/+/838851/ writing the patch for it]. Very impressive test engineering work. Well done. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 05:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Couldn't have done it without you, [[User:TheresNoTime|TNT]], and all the people who contributed to [[phab:T238025|T238025]], of course. Everyone deserves a pat on the back! 🥳 <span style="background:#ffff55">'''''[[User:Chlod|Chlod]]'''''</span> <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">([[User talk:Chlod|say hi!]])</small> 05:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Kudos to both of you. Now, I'll have to get used to it {{smiley}}.[[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*<big><big>Thank you!!</big></big> [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 12:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Request: Backlog chart for redirects == |
|||
I'd like to request a backlog chart for redirects. I understand some people don't care about reviewing redirects, but I think if a backlog chart exists it will bring attention to the fact that there is a backlog. It'll also be useful for tracking the overall level of unreviewed redirects overtime and useful if we do have a redirect backlog drive at any point. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 12:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:agree w/ Hey man im josh, it actually would be a ''very good'' idea if we had a redirect chart--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 01:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We'll first have to make sure that the data for the chart starts being collected. I'll try to see which bot does it for the article backlog number, and contact the bot operator. Once we have that, creating the chart template isn't that tough. -[[User:MPGuy2824|MPGuy2824]] ([[User talk:MPGuy2824|talk]]) 02:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::great, thanks--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 12:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Learning how to review redirects === |
|||
:Is there a summary place to learn practical redirect review? For example, the common reasons that they get deleted? [[WP:Redirect]] (only) gives examples of when and when not to delete. Is that the rulebook? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 15:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Pinging {{u|Rosguill}} who is like the king of redirects. Personally, I check to see if it's a plausible typo/alternate for the target, (e.g. [[The Look Of Love]] for the [[The Book of Love]], or [[T. N. Wills]] for [[Thomas N. Wills]] -- I can't think of a plausible type off the top of my head, but something that had an ie at the end instead of y). If it's not obvious, I check to make sure it's mentioned in the target (using control F), if not, then I send it to RFD), if it is, then I mark it reviewed. But I don't do a lot in redirects presently, although I'll start to take a look again. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 16:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the ping, [[WP:RPATROL]] has a more thorough list of advice. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Redirect checklist]] –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 11:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Another point to make is that in general, with any "how to" questions, the first place to look is in the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol|NPP tutorial]] which leads to both of the above links (actually, NL's link is a sub-section). [[User:MB|<b style="color:#034503">MB</b>]] 14:12, 1 November 2022 (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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I am guessing I'm in the wrong place but am hoping the good graces of Wikipedia will take mercy and tell me where I need to be to ask my question. I recently posted my second article of creation. I was told that I did not need to have it approved through the draft process and could just move it to article status myself. So I did. Very quickly someone came along and gave it B status. Then I went to google it and couldn't find it only to learn that new pages have to be reviewed or wait 90 days. I didn't know that! Now I can't find it anywhere on the new pages to be reviewed list either! My creation Christianization of the Roman Empire as caused by attractive appeal is lost in an alternate universe somewhere! Is there anything I can do to bring it home? I would like to volunteer to help with this whole review process thingy, but it looks a little overwhelming for a relative newby. There's so much I don't know. Wikipedia is a morass. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi New pages patrol/Reviewers,
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Deployed earlier today:
–Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm still very new to actually reviewing pages even though I've been going through NPP school for awhile and so far I've mostly been focusing on redirects. But I've noticed that the process for unreviewing a page is not ideal. Maybe it's just because I'm new or because the green just doesn't stand out as much as it should on my screen, but I've happened to accidentally unreview a page (both redirects) twice. Obviously my mistakes are my mistakes, but I was wondering if maybe someone has pointed out that a more distinct visual difference might be useful? Like an x instead of a checkmark either way for unreviewing. Or a way to set a preference to get a prompt saying "are you certain you want to unreview this page?" Also my understanding (which may be flawed) is that things really shouldn't rely on colour for accessibility reasons. By the way, if anyone sees any issues with the limited reviews I've done so far, please let me know. I'd rather be set on the right path now than find out I've been messing things up for who knows how long later on. Clovermoss (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
WP is becoming Botipedia. See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Dams article. Atsme 💬 📧 11:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There are several proposals in this workshop that would affect notability and the NPP workflow. For example, "Proposed solution 1.1 (to issue 1: Mass creations)" is "Require new articles to be supported by at least one citation to a reliable source that is not a database." The relationship between GNG and SNG is also discussed. This talk page/workshop may also be a good opportunity to inject some of your own proposals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements#Club_all_"were_created_by"_options_into_one_drop_down
Hi all. Brand new reviewer here, freshly trained by the wonderful @Atsme. Here’s hoping she or anyone else can answer this. When I am in the new page feed, I can see in red a page was previously deleted. Where do I see the new page? I am kinda feeling a little stuck. This page is not suitable for Wikipedia at present. Can I really draftify it without a discussion? I also want to know how I can compare it against the previous article, and also want to know how it was deleted? I know I can only CSD an article that was deleted after consensus to delete was reached, AND it needs to be substantially similar. Can’t figure out how to actually check those two criteria though?
One page I just CSDd did actually have the AFD discussion in the talk page. I checked that and there was consensus to delete. Given the new article was a one sentence stub I CSD tagged it. Also, beginners opinion here, but I’m unsurprised at the backlog. Looking at it, very few articles stand out as ones I can quickly review. Is there a reason we allow editors with so few contributions to be autoconfirmed and create articles? I feel like articles for creation works better? I feel sort of stuck at NPP - I either have to mark the article as OK, or it gets tagged or deleted. Whereas AFC I feel like the junk can quickly be declined, then the writer has a chance to resubmit? Any tips for a newbie? I also can’t figure a way to sort out the new pages feed into categories like one can at AFC? Thanks so much everyone and happy to be part of the team! MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I am doing what I can to help. I appreciate all of you and the work you do. i know the last thing you want is to read a long story. But I thought if anything, this may be something more editors can learn from.
During NPP I found Ohana (surname) dab page - it was just a list, and I checked to see if there was a page. I found Ohana (disambiguation) page - and there was ample room in the d page to move the surnames and redirect. The page creator began reverting the redirect, and the merge. The page creator erased every message I put on their talk page. I decided to send the redirected page to AfD so they would stop reverting the redirect.
The page creator started an RFC on the dab/surname topic. At the RFC an admin (BD2412) told them they should if possible include references providing information about surname origins and usage.
. The dab creator then added a reference. Next BD2412 came to the AfD to tell me I should be trouted and blocked because there can't be references in a dab page. So I then erased the reference from the dab pages and came back to announce it in the AfD. I then went to BD2412's talk page, to ask about the comments in AfD. They did not answer, but instead came to the AfD to threaten taking me to ANI for erasing references. Me I am following what they said, there can't be references in a dab page... I commented that they should have discussed with me on their talk page. Next they went to their talk page and said I was trolling and they mentioned blocking me.
What started all of this? I saw two short list/landing pages named Ohana and thought they should be combined. I really thought I was improving the project. I plan to take a break after this experience but I bring this here. Have a great weekend everyone! Bruxton (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to interfere in this but as a general comment do be aware that dab pages and surname pages are quite different and have different requirements in respect of references, formatting etc: it's common practice for a surname page to be broken out of a dab page. Ingratis (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry that you had to go though all this. It shouldn't have escalated as quickly as it did. We all have bad days and can overreact to things and this time it seems you just got caught up in it. I hope you stick around and don't let a one off like this discourage your important work. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Discontinued editing due to persistent harassment. Good bye.Please see WP:BITE and WP:NPPNICE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Happy editing! I approved your dab page. Second post to them
do not revert the redirect - it duplicates a disambig which exists and is not too long. Please read WP:DABNAME Specifically,They erased the posts, including one from another user. In any event I have given myself a timeout from editing. It is good to take a step back - and in doing so one can reflect and move forward with a better approach. Bruxton (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page. The page exists for that purpose.If you have further questions you can ask at WP:NPP. Thanks and keep up the good work!
One of the reasons reviewers get frustrated is when they encounter push-back after an action. There are examples of this above. Some of this can be avoided if we rely more on consensus-based discussions rather than unilateral actions. One scenario that comes to mind is Merge/Redirect.
The tutorial says If you come upon an article on a duplicate topic… [that] has content that warrants merging, perform a merge.
The flowchart says the essentially the same. They both link to WP:MERGE, which says If the need for a merge is obvious, editors can be bold and simply do it
It goes on to say otherwise, start a merge discussion. The NPP tutorial does not directly mention starting merge discussions.
Occasionally, there will be a new article on “Joe actor” that should be merged into the existing article “Joseph actor”. But it is much more common that we will have a new article on a topic may not be notable but could be covered in another article. Obviously, the creator of the article would disagree. If you follow VP discussions on stubs/short articles/combining into broader articles/etc., you are aware that this is a contentious subject. Most potential merges we find at NPP probably should be discussed.
I think the tutorial should be updated to reflect this and give further guidance, such as:
MB 20:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Doing a merge can be a lot of work, indeed it can and hence why it is not within the expected tasks of new page reviewers and anything in the tutorial that suggest it is should be removed, even if aeons ago I wrote it myself. There's nothing to stop an editor doing anything that improves the encyclopedia, but IMO the general best approach here would be AfD with 'Delete or Merge' as the rationale, and let someone else do the merging if that is the outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
is not within the expected tasks of new page reviewers, but I don't agree you should AFD an article unless you really think it should be deleted. The first section of WP:BEFORE links to WP:ATD which says
If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the pageand then discusses Merging. I think proposing merges would be best practice; it accomplishes the same thing and still
lets someone else do the merging if that is the outcome. There are just some NPP housekeeping details to address, which are what I was proposing. MB 00:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Back in July, it seemed like extending NOINDEX on unreviewed articles was imminent. I proposed a maint message on unreviewed pages that would explain why the article was not visible in search engines and what could be done to improve the article and increase its chances of being reviewed and indexed. NOINDEX has been delayed, so this has been on the back-burner. We do expect NOINDEX to still happen, hopefully soon.
The original proposal was this:
This article has not yet been reviewed. While it has been added to Wikipedia, it will not be visible to external search engines until it is reviewed to ensure it complies with core policies. Articles must be about a notable subject, be verifiable and not have copyright violations or be promotional. To minimize delays in reviewing this article, it should comply with these policies and have multiple reliable sources to establish notability of the subject (inline citations are preferred). (Learn more about the use and removal of this template)
|
Doing something like this had wide conceptual support, but there was concern that such a message was just too obtrusive to be put on every new article until it was reviewed. The message used at the German Wikipedia was suggested as an alternative. That is just a small box in the upper right corner of an article that says (which means Not Seen (reviewed)). That is from the Flagged revisions feature of Mediawiki which they use. If you want to see that on an actual article, go here. I don't think pursuing anything requiring software changes is likely to happen quickly given that we don't even get bugs fixed. As an alternative, something that we can probably implement without the WMF would be a more simple and unobtrusive message like:
Option 3
This article is unreviewed. (Learn more)
The "Learn more" would be a link to a help page with all the info from the first banner. You can see how this would look on a actual article here. Should we pursue the last example?MB 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 4
This article has not been reviewed and may not be visible to external search engines. (Learn more)
|
— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Here is a smaller version:
Option 5
This article is unreviewed. (Learn more) |
- MB 16:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
How bold can we be with retargeting redirects when reviewing and can we review the redirect if we've retargeted it? This is my biggest issue I run into when the redirects aren't an easy approve.
Example: Annal Gandhi - I was going to bring this to RfD and then realized I might just be stuck in my own head. It's not related to target article (Mahatma Ghandhi) according to Google main/news/scholar searches in English, though I'm not sure if there's a Tamil relevancy I'm missing. However, it is the name of a government hospital in Tiruchirappalli. Would it be fine to retarget to Tiruchirappalli, add the info about the hospital, and mark it as reviewed, or is there a better course of action?
Thanks! originalmesstalk 09:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a question regarding sending an article to draft. What should a reviewer do when they send an article to draft but the article's creator ignores the draft and recreates the article in main space a week later? It has happened a few times so far. In the latest instance I have sent the recreated article to AfD. But is that the right course? Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
This page was proposed for deletionbyBruxton (talk · contribs) on 6 September 2022. |
I've been thinking about how the autopatrolled user right seems to be a persistent source of controversy. Perhaps it would be better if the autopatrolled user right could not be applied for by users at all, and instead would be granted based on the suggestion of new page patrollers? Since the right doesn't actually allow a user to do anything they couldn't previously, and instead serves to remove noncontroversial articles from the NPP queue, it would make sense that the right is only granted if NPPers suggest it. Not ready to start an RfC yet or anything, but curious if anyone has thoughts about this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Please note there is a discussion at WP:ANI that relates to NPP: WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about New Page reviewer draftifying work while I'm still working on it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I have been thinking about how to make draftification more acceptable. I wasn't ready to propose this yet, but it's directly related to the prior section on editors not seeing messages on their Talk Pages about their articles being moved to draft.
A major objection to draftification is that Drafts are too "hidden" and unlikely to be improved; the best way to improve an article is for it to be in mainspace where people will find it.
Currently, you do get this message if you try to create an article when there is a draft:
There is a draft of this article at Draft:Example.
What if we make a major change and just leave an "article" in mainspace containing:
Wikipedia does not have an article by this name. A draft exists at Draft:Example but it has not been approved for inclusion into the encyclopedia. It may not have sufficient references or its quality is not ready for publication. Click the notice at the top of the draft or its talk page for more information and if you can, please consider improving it. |
This means the title would show up in the search box, and could be linked from other articles. That would be a major departure from the current process of Draftification which completely deletes the article from mainspace, and would require a project level RFC. Since the article is not in mainspace, but the title is - it is as likely to be improved in Draft space as it would be if it had stayed in main space. There are other things to work out, like this would prevent someone moving the draft back directly per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, they would have to make a technical move request (which I think would be a good thing). I guess the first thing is to get a feeling whether we think this would be worthwhile, and do we think there is a chance of getting it approved at the project level? MB 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
{{promising draft}}
which gives extra consideration before auto deletion. Doing that would may make Draftification more acceptable to to those that are against it today.Don't forget that there are lots of articles in draft space that shouldn't be articles. This seems to presume "should be an article but needs work". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated as it is likely to affect how NPP reviews these types of articles. Also, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. Atsme 💬 📧 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Boyu Jin, a Boston College student wasn't able to get their draft reviewed in an unlucky way on the 3 May they were denied for the existence of a copy of the draft and on the 18 may the draft was denied because an article with the same title already exists in main space. Following a merge discussion ensued. The articles in Draft and in Mainspace were created by the same editor and maybe we could think of something to smooth out the collaborations between the wikipedia community and editors from educational institutions. If (hidden) categories for such drafts and articles would be created potentially supportive editors of a certain eduction wikipedia collaboration could take care of such drafts and articles. The articles I have seen from of the Boston college project were rather well elaborated and if such and other editors from other educational institutions were welcomed a bit more it might encourage them to join not only the particular project but then also become a regular wikipedia editor. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I am of the mind that advanced NPP reviewers should be given more tools to work with as content oriented reviewers, and that those who have graduated from NPPSCHOOL and/or have otherwise demonstrated their qualifications as quality reviewers should be given those unbundled tools as part of their NPP user rights.
Reason:
When a qualified reviewer decides to nom an article for CSD or PROD, it is because they did the research, and what happens next? They have to tag and wait for an overworked admin to show up and follow-thru. Unfortunately, it often ends in rejection when nomming for CSD & PROD, and then it ends up at AfD where even more valuable time is wasted, not to mention potential drama. Keep in mind that the admins who reject CSDs and PRODs do not review articles at the same level that NPP does – they don't do any BEFORE. Instead, they make their decisions based only on the as-is content. Why is that decision more reliable than that of an NPP reviewer, whose work is most affected by it? It is my understanding that admins are supposed to focus on behavior, not content. Content is NPP's job, but what we are faced with daily can create frustration and burn out because the work we do is not taken seriously, and we catch a lot of slack over it. A quick example of frustration: a 60 edit article creator did not like their unsourced stub being redirected, so they revert the redirect. The article goes back in the NPP queue, and another reviewer shows up, redirects, and the cycle begins again. Next reviewer draftifies, but the article ends up in main space again – Ad infinitum. Ad absurdum. Why not give the reviewer the ability to protect the redirect? I fail to see how an admin's decision is any more reliable than that of a qualified, experienced NPP reviewer who did WP:BEFORE and/or triage before they came to their conclusion. So here is my suggestion:
Unbundle a few admin tools so NPP reviewers can handle their own CSD, PRODs, protect redirects, and close AfDs they are not involved in. That would take a load of tedious work off our admins while at the same time eliminate all the frustration that NPP reviewers deal with daily. It is easy enough to check a reviewer's Curation & AfD log for balance and good judgment. Why all the bureaucracy? I see far more pros than cons to unbundling a few tools. Atsme 💬 📧 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
To confirm, by "handle their own CSD, PRODs", you mean be able to delete those pages? And by "close AfDs" you also mean delete those pages? As non-admins can already close AfDs as keep as per WP:NAC. Also, is this proposal to create a new permission set I take it, not give to all NPPers? How much of an issue are the redirects? I'd be very cautious with non-admins having the power to delete articles personally. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This seems to imply there are regular NPP reviewers and those that are "quality reviewers". That is a flawed premise, we expect all reviews to be of quality. I think this is a non-starter on that basis alone. MB 20:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be the perennial proposal to unbundle certain admin tools, which has historically been a non-starter for a variety of reasons. SamWalton (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The answer to the specific scenario posed above is to eliminate the ability to reject draftification. That’s the basic problem. If draftified by NPP, the article should have to go through AFC.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
CSD and page protections deserve a level of independent review before they are acted on, even if the editor in question is highly experienced. Rejected CSDs and PRODs, more often than not, are a sign that these pages should not have been tagged as such, categorically not a pretext for editors to get a license to kill articles. CSD and RfPP don't have significant backlogs, so this proposal doesn't solve any existing problem. Moreover, for the reasons other editors have already pointed out, if this solution goes searching for problems it is bound to run into many of them. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Rosguill, a second pair of eyes is necessary before an article is deleted. That aside, the chances of permissions to allow non-admins to delete articles being agreed to is virtually non-existent. --John B123 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The proposal is made in good faith and at least people are beginning to think outside the box for solutions to NPP, but this isn't it. Further unbundling of admin tools will always meet with resistance and there have been abuse of rights from NPR rights holders, and other reverts of patrollers' actions are not uncommon. . Even if it were to get consensus, anything like this that needs a tweak at Phabricator would be rejected by the salaried WMF devs who make up their own policies as it suits them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
To elaborate a bit on my oppose, I believe that granting these rights would risk losing important editorial oversight, as even "obvious" cases could be reasonably challenged by some. I've seen enough threads here recently, as well as trends while reviewing the new pages feed, to believe that several problematic scenarios could arise with this set of expanded NPP rights (at least, assuming the bar for NPP is unchanged): for instance, a borderline A7/G11 gets deleted without the admin's second set of eyes (I have encountered a few that I may have draftified instead), or hasty (i.e., in much less than an hour – while an article is still underconstruction – a move already not advised per WP:DRAFTIFY) draftification occurs and a good-faith creator is met with protection. Similarly, while NPP carries a certain level of trust, closing discussions is not within the primary workflow of NPP, and a dubious patrol (it happens to the best of us) is much more easily addressed/contested than a dubious deletion. I agree with Rosguill that a second set of eyes is beneficial. However, I also will acknowledge the frustration that comes with the job; in my opinion, WP:DRAFTIFY needs an overhaul, more so than NPP user rights. Complex/Rational 01:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, all!
I originally asked for feedback at the NPP Coordinators noticeboard but was encouraged to seek everyone's thoughts here . I have drafted a proposal to add the suppressredirect
to the NPP toolkit, so we can draftify articles without needing to tag a redirect for deletion. My proposed RfC can be found in my sandbox. I am open to any and all feedback, but would love some thoughts specifically about how likely you would be to support such a proposal. Thank you! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
suppressredirect
is quite a powerful user right since it lets you conduct round-robin page swaps, which can be used to move pages to almost any title without much oversight. That means that in practice, this proposal could have the unintentional effect of giving new page patrollers the ability to (for instance) close most requested move discussions or carry out requests at WP:RM/TR, both things that are generally reserved for folks with "participation in requested moves and move reviews, or experience closing move requests". I'm not sure I'm quite convinced that the benefits of this proposal would outweigh the harms: it would slightly reduce the workload for the sysops who have to delete the redirects, but that's a pretty minor benefit, isn't it? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees election has started. Votes will be accepted until 23:59 on 6 September (UTC). View candidate statement videos, and Vote NOW. |
I noticed that a new page patroller had recently created an unsourced BLP and was warned by another editor for it. Clearly if someone believes that creating unsourced BLP is acceptable, they are not suitable to be a patroller. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In extreme cases you may need to inform an administrator, an NPP coordinator, or post at WP:ANI, but always try to help your colleague first.Is this still our preferred advice? We can always tweak this if necessary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In extreme cases you may need to inform an administrator or post at WP:AARV, but always try to help your colleague first. MB 02:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
XRV is not the right place for this, it is for incorrect admin actions, not for actions that might well have been perfectly alright at the time but where now some right needs to be revoked for standard editing reasons. I recently tried to solve a similar case by talking to the admin that gave the right in the first place, but they were extremely dismissive, so that's not always a good solution either. WP:ANI is currently the best solution (if issues persist after talking to the editor involved of course). Fram (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi folks. Shamefully popping in here to see if anyone can help me troubleshoot why I can't see any pages in my NPP feed? I get the red-text warning 'No pages match your criteria' but I hadn't knowingly set any search criteria yet. Using it on a Chrome browser. Any obvious reasons spring to mind? Cache issues maybe? Zakhx150 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
There are some interesting discussions taking place which may have an effect on NPPers. I've been attempting to help to get the backlog back to reasonableness, and in reviewing certain articles, I've come across large blocks of uncited text. It has been my process if the article might be notable, or in some cases is definitely notable, to draftify those articles. I am not saying these articles need several sources, but are clearly notable (that's a different case, where I'll mark them reviewed and then add the more ref tag at the top -- then go back in a month or so to see if improvements have been made). These articles simply have large blocks of text, usually the bulk of the article, which are simply unsourced. I've felt it was less disruptive to move them to draft, than simply gutting the article. If the draftifying is objected to, at that point I'll remove the large blocks of texts, since I feel that WP:VERIFY is one of the most important policies on WP -- helping us ensure the quality of the project, as well as adding to our credibility. We had an issue similar to this last year or the year before, where an editor was making Canadian river articles, and adding large blocks of texts describing the course of the river, it's tributaries, etc. Without adding sources, or simply adding a link to database, which did not back up the information they were including. And I believe that also escalated to ANI, before it was resolved that WP:VERIFY is a pretty important concept.
But back to the discussions taking place. The first is User talk:Onel5969#Citing the route section on road articles, there is a link in that to the second discussion on the Roads project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. And finally, there's this brief discussion, as well as this where there's an admin threatening to block me for following policy. Now, looking at this, I bring it up, since I am most likely going to get attacked for following policy, but honestly, I do not know how to review without using policy as the bedrock for reviews. Regardless, I intend to continue reviewing until we get this backlog manageable, but I refuse to ignore policy. I know other reviewers have differing views (since one of the folks disagreeing with my is an NPPer, although not very active). Perhaps someone here could point out to me if I indeed am missing the point. Sorry to blather on. Onel5969 TT me 11:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Quite frankly, your actions were a net negative as they removed content and alienated an editor in an underrepresented topic (South Africa).-
If this is such a big deal, then why didn't you go ahead and add the citations yourself?- my aunt Fanny. Why are we getting these statements from an administrator who a) should be aware that enforcing a fundamental policy is more important than following an essay, and b) that obliging new page patrollers to "just go and find the sources yourself" is a recipe for getting NPP productivity and participation down to zero? We do triage, that means excision and/or draftifying to prevent unsourced stuff in mainspace. - Having said that, if you are heading into conflict you want to keep your ducks in a row; talk page use, formal warnings, and punting things upstairs when 3RR is looming. It's no good getting strung up on the strength of incidentals when you are right in principle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
it says on my userpage this user recognizes the importance of citing sources. This is true - I just need a little bit of help/guidance for which references to use for what etc.– much more strongly suggestive of confusion. In any case, the burden on NPP is not to add sources, merely determine whether they have a strong likelihood of existing (pass or fail). Onel5969, given how the ANI blew up (even if you're not concerned about the outcome), I might suggest reviewing other articles in the meantime to not give an impression of singling out one editor's work (this is not a feeling only newcomers experience). I second Elmidae's wisdom above as well – NPP is overburdened enough with thankless work as things stand and upholding WP:V is a critical aspect of that work. Complex/Rational 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We've discussed the exponential growth in the expansion of the Internet in some regions and the availability of low-cost smart phones there - well noted that we got some flak from two users who boldly accused us of "xenophobia and racism" for mentioning it in the first draft of the Open Letter - but this excellent article in August by Akhil George in The Times of India, one of the country's most respected newspapers, makes no bones about it: "India recently became the second largest contributor to the English Wikipedia after the US".
If that doesn't confirm the need for reviewers who can read sources in Indic languages and who understand MOS:COMMONALITY, I don't know what does. Any campaigns to recruit new reviewers should bear this in mind, but we want to avoid another Wifione (former admin) which is another reason why reviewers should always be on their mettle and not patrol too quickly - and why admins should be sure to do in-depth due diligence before according the reviewer right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Based on the number from yesterday, we should be able to clear the backlog this month at this rate, amazingly! (Of course that rate isn't sustainable though as people will burn-out.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost September issue was published a few minutes ago. This month's 'In focus' column is dedicated to NPP and also includes a reprint of the Open Letter appeal that was signed by a total of 444 editors. As yet there has been no official response on the page for replies to the letter which was published earlier this month on Meta and Wikipedia, and personally notified to around 80 members of the senior WMF staff and Board of Trustees. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The article about NPP had the highest number of visits on the first day of publication. It didn't generate a lot of comments but nor did any other articles. User comments were supportive. The WMF left a long speech instead of replying to the letter in the right place. They had clearly not read their emails and had confused the Open Letter action with an article about it in a newspaper. The Board of Trustees has not made any public acknowledgment to either the letter or the Signpost article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Nominating new articles for AFD, CSD, and others using Page curation does not keep a log. Is there a way to activate it or is it only Twinkle that logs these nominations? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I am so proud of all of you.... the backlog between 1/1/2020 and 4/30/2022 is .... 0. (There's one article there, but it's prodded). Great job folks. As the bard said, "I am amazed and know not what to do." Onel5969 TT me 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this is best raised, so feel free to point me elsewhere, but I wanted to get some eyes on an issue with Page Curation, which describes User:Juandissimo1 as a possible attack page for reasons that aren't obvious (and blatantly faulty). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Those of you that often get the "I tagged for AFD with Page Curation toolbar and it did everything except make the AFD page" bug, please run the software through its paces and see if you can reproduce it. Pretty good chance it's fixed this time. In the event of great success, all credit goes to Chlod. In the event of great failure, we will all run and hide, making it hard for you to lodge your complaints! :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Why there's no edit summary on this edit? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC in progress at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale about how the community should approach mass creations of articles. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation- I realized I've not been in compliance with this when it comes to G4, my thinking being that if a past discussion has decided the topic is not notable nothing can be done about it and waiting gives false hope. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor. Outside these exceptions, an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.VickKiang (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I've been doing this for a little while now, and I group articles into categories: 1 - new articles - day or two old; 2 - front of the queue - up to 30 days old; Prime reviewing - 31-90 days old; old articles - over 90 days, up to a year old; and very old articles. In my time here, I've never seen the Very old backlog at zero before. Not only did we accomplish that, the backlog of what I would consider Old articles also hit zero for the first time I can remember. Now, of course, I'm not including articles that are in the process of prods/AfDs, etc. But wow.
Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
This may be the wrong venue to ask, but here it goes. . . . I created the article "Robert Searight" in May and it passed NPP review in July. Why doesn't the page show in a google search? For example it doesn't come up when I search for "Wikipedia Robert Searight". Thanks in advance. Bammesk (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Incredible job – all I can say is please leave us some unreviewed pages for NPPSCHOOL exercises! CONGRATULATIONS, REVIEWERS. I will be happy to buy a round for all of you at the next in-person WikiCon!!!! Atsme 💬 📧 12:21, October 11, 2022 (UTC)
@Mccapra, @Onel5969, @Barkeep49, @MPGuy2824. The longer term chart of the backlog is up on my user page (copied below). It hit nearly zero in mid 2018. It was around ~2000 in 2021 at one point as well. Both were very brief downspikes though. Hopefully we can manage to get it down and keep it down this time. There was also some prior manual data that I had added to the first chart below if you want to see what the pre-2018 backlog looked like. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
These two charts show all the data going back as far as we have records for. MusikAnimal didn't include the manual data (first chart) in the automated chart (second chart) when he made it since he didn't trust it (some of the early data was based on comments here and elsewhere that I scoured and collected where people where commenting on what the backlog was doing). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi all — some testing has uncovered a few pages which are unable to be marked as reviewed due to a bug. These are:
On a quick review, these all seem to be pages which would be marked now as "reviewed". I'd like to propose, technical restrictions notwithstanding, that these are manually (i.e. via a database change) marked as reviewed. Seeing as NPP reviewers are the editors who would have marked such pages as reviewed, I believe it proper to ask your permission and gain your consensus to do so, instead of just "fixing it" as a technical hiccup. @Novem Linguae: Pinging just so you're aware of this proposal. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a bunch of redirects that reviewers have tagged via draftify user script for speedy deletion under CSD R2 (inappropriate cross-namespace redirects) that can be found here, yet none of them are included in Category:Candidates for speedy deletionorCategory:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. A few of these were tagged for speedy deletion up to 24 hours ago (e.g. Korea TV and Terry Gudaitis). Bennv123 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts § WP:DRAFTIFY is a bit verbose. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
(with apologies to Agatha Christie...
And yes, Joe Roe, I did doublecheck my filters this time. Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
redacted — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Great work getting the backlog removed and the queue down to zero. Now can we forget about it for a bit? It’s tempting to focus on staying close to zero when that’s not our purpose. Editors need time to improve their articles and we have 90 days to do our work in. If NPP now turns into a zapathon it will just piss a lot of people off, so let’s not be too hasty with draftifying where that’s appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I mean... some newbies want their articles reviewed quickly.You mean within a week instead of three months, or in 15 seconds instead of a zapper's 30 seconds:? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Following is a list of requests for tools we need that have not been fulfilled at phab:
Atsme 💬 📧 10:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draftify things, or improve-in-situ, which discusses on potential improvements when drafting articles. VickKiang (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
What is deletion by the back door?it was naturally a cynical rhetorical question. Complaints against all aspects of NPP come and go in cycles. This month's flavour is 'moving to draft'. Next month will be AfD. Around Christmas it will probably be BLPPROD. The only common denominator is that most of the anti NPP crowd are either newbies or very old inclusionists who haven't done any patrolling for yonks or never done any at all, or WMF staff masquerading as volunteers and suggesting that NPP is a superfluous process (diffs available going back to 2010). Fazit? Well, I wholly concur with @Mccapra and Alexandermcnabb:. OTOH, Hey man im josh, it depends how draftification is done. There are several options. The one I use isn't bitey at all, but at the end ofthe day the onus is on the crreators to submit policy compliant articles. Hey, wait - isn't that the fault of the WMF for not creating a proper landing page? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
"Draftification" covers many scenarios, but I assuming we're talking about an article that has not established wp:notability. Draftification both provides the opportunity and responsibility for the GNG source search task to the article creator/proponent. It is different than AFD, not a "back door" to it. North8000 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Well the queue has just exploded because User:BilledMammal redirected a huge number of insect stubs and User:Elmidae reverted, bringing hundreds into the queue. Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the default filters shown to a fresh New Page Patroller are "State (Reviewed, Unreviewed), Type (Nominated for deletion, All others)". You can check this out by logging out of Wikipedia and then going to Special:NewPagesFeed. This doesn't make sense to me, and i think we should show such folk only the pages in the article and redirect backlogs i.e. things that they can work on immediately. I propose the following changes:
I've purposely separated these out, in case folk think that not all three are good to do. This will not affect any reviewer who has changed their filter options, only fresh NPPers; and even they can change these filter defaults, whenever they want. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to double check, I'm interpreting this as being just about default filter settings.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It comes as a huge relief that the AfD bug has now been resolved. No more switching back and forth between Page Curation and Twinkle. A big round of applause please for Novem Linguae and any other volunteers who helped him pull this rabbit out of the hat. Let's hope he will send the bill to the WMF. The whole issue was another example of the blatant refusals of the WMF to address bugs in the software they built and telling us to clear off and do it ourselves (diffs available). Fortunately thanks to our open letter things are hopefully going to change. Fingers crossed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to request a backlog chart for redirects. I understand some people don't care about reviewing redirects, but I think if a backlog chart exists it will bring attention to the fact that there is a backlog. It'll also be useful for tracking the overall level of unreviewed redirects overtime and useful if we do have a redirect backlog drive at any point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)