Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive 5

Reduce patronizing

It is clearly extraneous; and to one user: patronizing, to see the opening paragraph begin and end with platitudes of dutiful Admin mention. They are so clearly forced in place that they remain, in spite of "borne inaccuracies". I'd like to see it re-worked, and am, of course, willing to help. Where am I wrong about this?--John Cline (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That paragraph, to me, makes a clear statement of both the knowledge and responsibility we require of reviewers. The expectation of admins' knowledge of deletion and notability are well documented by community consensus. Mistagging for deletion both increases admin workload and can discourage new contributors. In fact, the way our processes work, admins are the second set of eyes when making deletion decisions and their knowledge protects content from improper deletion. A reviewer is the first set of eyes, if they regularly tag articles which are declined the content may be saved but the damage to the user base may have already been done. To avoid this both groups should have the same fluency in, and understanding of, Wikipedia's content policies. Jbh^Talk 13:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's probably just me.--John Cline (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

John, JBH explains exquisitely. Also one essential feature of the work of a New Page Reviewer is that unlike most other additional user 'rights', reviewers are our front line representatives and they are frequently asked by creators to further explain why their articles have been tagged. Of course, the instructions provided to new users should already cover this, but patrollers are nevertheless very often asked, and many of them have not necessarily demonstrated the communication skills that reflect how serious the Wikipedia project actually is. In fact a survey jointly ran by the NPP task force and th WMF denonstartaed that a sadly significant number of the users sporting an 'I am a New Page Patroller' userbox were n fact trolls. It is hoped that the new right will attract users of the right calibre to the task - possibly even those who are even near-admin candidate material. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well. While I agree with all you have said here, I do not feel the current prose delivers these sentiments as well. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey John. I always think it works best when suggested replacement language is provided so everyone can sink teeth into the specifics; so we're not talking in the abstract. Do you possibly have a suggested rewrite of the paragraph?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The NPP tutorial is complex

– Yes, indeed it is, because reviewing needs more knowledge of notability, deletions, and the processing of new articles than even many admins are aware of. Constant monitoring of the process by the coordinators and seeing the questions asked on the reviewers' talk page, has revealed that even after being accorded access to the reviewing tools, many patrollers are still unsure of what to do, or are not 100% native speakers.

While nothing, apart perhaps from graduating from the NPP School, can substitute the tutorial, the coordinators and other very experienced reviewers are actively engaged in making the reviewers' UX more agreeable. After 10 years of deployment of PageTriage, talks are underway with the WMF to update the system in order to meet new challenges. Part of this work also involves not only minor expansions to the tutorial to include better explanations, but also applying the applied linguistics principles of graded reading to the tutorial for the benefit of near-native speakers and newer patrollers. This is being done by experts in their field and is a work in progress. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Minimum review time updates

Care

Care should be exercised when reviewing very new pages. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense for deletion shortly 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 deletion or draftified for an hour after creation and/or the last constructive edit. It is often appropriate to tag problems and allow several hours or days for improvement. Articles must nevertheless be reviewed within 90 days otherwise they will be released for indexing by Google and other search engines whatever state they are in.

PROD/BLPPROD tags can be applied at any time since there is no immediate deletion and these serve to notify the creator of what needs to be fixed. However, it may still be appropriate to not apply these too quickly, especially if there are any signs of ongoing editing. Redirecting a page (or reverting to a prior redirect) is a form of article deletion, so the care described above should be taken before performing these actions as well.

Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD)

Speedy deletion candidates (CSD). Carefully read through the major speedy deletion criteria. In most cases you can only use the fixed criteria; there is no catchall—so if you are not sure what criterion to use, but are sure the article should be speedied, leave the page for another reviewer. Do not be too hasty to use CSD A1 (no context), CSD A3 (no content), or CSD A7 (no indication of importance for people, animals, organizations, web content, events); per § Care, wait at least an hour to give time to the creator to add content and/or references.

Professionalism

Please do not be too hasty with speedy deletions for "non-egregious" (other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, or complete nonsense), especially those lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3). Writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least an hour to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion. If you see a page that has been tagged too hastily, please notify the tagger about their hasty deletion with {{subst:uw-hasty}}. The template {{hasty|placed above existing speedy tag to inform admins to of hasty tagging and to wait}} can also be added to the tagged article to flag that it was hastily tagged.

Drafts

Change bullet #3

from: there is no evidence of active improvement, and
to: there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour from last constructive edit), and

Suggested tweaks to the new 1 hour rule

After a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Minimum deletion time, it was decided to change the front-of-queue patroller waiting period from 15 minutes to 1 hour.

In reference to this edit:

1) I think one of the main benefits of switching from 15 minutes to 1 hour is that we can align most of our guidance to be the same amount of wait time (1 hour). I don't think PROD and BLPPROD are important enough to make exceptions to the one hour rule. I suggest deleting the paragraph that lists these as an exception to the one hour rule.

2) The 1 hour rule is also a big change to current norms, so I suggest making a post about the new rule at WT:NPPR, and possibly also in our newsletter.

3) I suggest deleting "since the last constructive edit". This makes the rule too variable. The rule should be simple to calculate and not require extra clicks to go look at the history and do mental math. It should be one hour from article creation, unless there is an under construction tag. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

1) no harm in adding a prod at any time. There is benefit in providing quick feedback to the author while they are more likely to be around. I think we can live with the "complication" to the tutorial.

2) yes. Draft announcement in the next newsletter. Will post at NPPR too once has a few days to settle.

3) one hour after the creator stopped working on it. They could do an edit every hour for days and keep it "active", even without an under construction tag. As long as they are improving it, let it be. "Constructive edit" was meant to eliminate a third party tagging it, or some vandal doing something that was reverted. MB 05:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. PROD is by definition not urgent; if it can wait 7 days, it can wait 7 days + one hour. – Joe (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

on 1 and 2, I have no issues with that. I think Joe's point about providing feedback quickly can be handled with tags. On 3, I also think that the terminology "last constructive edit" is subjective and can lead to edit police actions (you know, edit wars that aren't really wars). I like Novem's idea of KISS, but do not like the idea of it being from article creation. Probably should be from last edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"From last edit" would mean that the addition of a template would start the clock again. Would "from the last edit by the creating editor" work? If not, then "from last constructive edit" seems pretty unambiguous to me, as excluding tagging and vandalism. PamD 20:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be by the creator. If someone else has started improving the article, that is fine too. "from the last constructive edit" was meant to be shorthand for "the last edit that improved the content of the article". Open to concise alternatives. MB 00:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

1 hour from creation is fine, with the following exceptions for things that should be promptly removed and aren't plausibly the basis for a good page:

CSD Criteria G3 (vandalism and hoaxes), G10 (attack pages), G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no concerns about 1 and 2. For 3, I agree with the above discussion that "last constructive edit" should be tweaked to imply content improvement, and support MB's wording or similar (e.g., "last edit expanding the article's content"). Additionally, rsjaffe, I feel G1 and A3 should be added to exceptions alongside G3/G10/G12, since a meaningful attempt at an article won't be patent nonsense (G1) or be completely devoid of content for over an hour (A3). ^Complex/_Rational 15:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree about the A3 exception for the following reason: what I am proposing is that there be circumstances under which an article can be immediately deleted even seconds after creation without giving the author a chance to improve it. Blank pages could be an accidental start to a real article where the author accidentally saved it prematurely. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. To clarify, my thoughts were to keep the status quo of ~15 minutes for A3, as an accidental blank page could occur but would not likely stay blank for so long. If it's too complex to write this separately, I suppose these pages would do no harm for an additional 45 minutes of existence. ^Complex/_Rational 15:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that is getting too complicated to have immediate, 15 minutes, and 1 hour. MB 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

These changes do not seem sufficiently fleshed out yet, and in my opinion do not match what we discussed at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Minimum deletion time. I am thinking about RFCing the whole thing. Before making such big changes to the NPP front-of-queue reviewing rules, we really should decide quite clearly whether the new rule is 1 hour from creation, 1 hour from creator's last edit, or 1 hour from anyone's last edit. I have some major concerns about calculating 1 hour from creator's last edit or 1 hour from anyone's last edit, as these seem difficult to calculate on the fly and add a burden on the NPPer. And I am also concerned that this change will serve as a "gotchya" every time an NPPer gets dragged to a noticeboard. The above diff has taken a rule that was really simple (wait 15 minutes from creation) and changed it to a rule that is potentially really complicated (click history tab, look up who created article, find their last edit, do mental math, etc.) I have grave concerns about these changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

IMO I think that the last constructive edit appears to be slightly vague. IMO I would prefer if it's changed to last edit expanding the article's content as per suggestions above, or otherwise could relatively minor edits (e.g., adding 200 or 300 bytes but not really adding more references to demonstrate WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, or significantly cleaning up to improve WP:NPOV) count towards this?

Otherwise, IMHO I think other than G1/G2/G3/G7/G10/G11/G12, which I am assuming could still be tagged very quickly anyway (please correct me if I'm wrong), I would personally prefer that A1 and A3 could still be tagged after 15 minutes. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I imagine a number of patrollers (including myself) already do most of the above – check history, look for evidence of active improvement, do mental math – it's just not written out step-by-step. The major differences I see are an increase in the "grace period" from 15 minutes to 1 hour, and a need to unambiguously clarify "1 hour since what?" in the spirit of giving benefit of the doubt for active improvement (also requiring consensus of which CSDs should wait the duration of the grace period). Moreover, there are many times patrollers will already wait a couple of hours; such an increase might also dissuade those who wait until exactly 16 minutes since creation to pull the trigger. ^Complex/_Rational 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect review bot

What is the purpose of the bot that "reviews" within 15 minutes? Downsize43 (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Bot? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's called dannybot (something). Comes up almost immediately for each redirect I create for a new article. Downsize43 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The bot is designed to automatically review non-controversial redirects. Questionable redirects are left for human review if I remember correctly. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the bot is DannyS712 bot III. Its purpose is to review non-controversial redirects in order to decrease the redirect queue, which lowers the burden on new page patrollers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Getting shot at AfC for NPP activities

A relevant discussion, possibly related to the current backlog drive that NPP has, has occurred on the AfC talk page.

Summarising the thread: An editor was working on splitting content from a dab page inserted by an IP editor when the new page was suddenly draftified. A confusion ensues with the editor thinking that draftification was a special right of AfC reviewers. The confusion has been cleared up with other AfC reviewers chiming in (and also evaluating the state of, what is now, draft). The drafication likely to have happened while conducting NPP reviews.

While the backlog drive is ongoing, I would like to urge NPP reviewers here to hold off dratifying new articles too soon lest we are accused of biting new and old editors alike. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care. How soon is too soon? 15 minutes to an hour according to the linked page. To this end, Novem Linguae has an userscript, User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/NotSoFast to highlight articles in the Page Curation tool if they were created one hour ago. – robertsky (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Robertsky the NPP stance on this has been summed up by some of the most experienced users of both AfC and NPP, including Robert McClenon in an unambiguous and clear final analysis to end the monster, time consuming thread at AfC. The posts were made for your consideration, please take a moment to read them and follow the links that were provided. While this has nothing to do with any backlog drives, such drives may obviously cause a temporary slight increase the number of articles moved to Draft. Just to recap however, draftification is not AfC and does not oblige an article creator to avail of the AfC process. Draftification is neverthess a standard procedure that can be used by New Page Reviewers as and when they consider appropriate. There is no shame in having one's article draftified. Quite to the contrary in fact, it can be a far more friendly process that having an article marched immediately to AfD or PRODed, and if/when a draft is submitted to AfC, a lot of help might be forthcoming - which is not in the remit of NPP. NPP also has deadlines - AfC does not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Helping the NPP people

Hello everyone,I don’t know if this is the appropriate venue for this but I have read the open letter that was published to WMF,and I think I might have some ideas to improve this process.Right now I was thinking about a page can be opened,where non-NPP people can review the new pages themselves and then can publish their draft of the review there and have an NPP look at it to publish the finalized version.From what I understood from the open letter,a page review is done by only one person.By implementing this we make it a multiple-manned process that takes work off of the already strained NPP’s in theory.We could have some criterias to determine these people obviously,such as being extended confirmed etc.This also can be a good way to get more NPP’s as they also gain experience doing this as from my understanding of the page it’s a hard to get right.I’m open to suggestions. 88.240.155.67 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not the appropriate venue - see the unmissable red text in the edit notice. No open letter has been published as yet, it is clearly still at the stage of gathering signatures. To learn more about this well established process and how it has been fine tuned over the years, please read NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers in our monthly newspaper The Signpost. Then take a look at WP:NPP to see what it involves. You'll probably soon realise that although there are around 750 reviewers, 90% of the work is done by only around 10% of them. Our main problem is one of not having enough regular reviewers. This problem might be partially solved by the improvements we need to the software in order to meet the new challenges that our reviewers are faced with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the idea. First I would recommend that you create an account, so that you can eventually apply to become a new page patroller. That would be a great way to help us out, once you're experienced enough. Second, for a process like NPP, I don't think having a non-patroller do the work and then having it checked by a patroller would be much quicker than just having the patroller check it. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

NL, I concur. This all sounds vaguely reminiscent of a current thread here where editors with no NPP experience are suggesting how NPP should be run and how things should be 'incentivised'. There are some good ideas but I don't think they'll stick. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Although only reviewers can check-off an article as reviewed, anyone can help indirectly by looking at new articles and properly applying tags if there are deficiencies, leaving more detailed messages on the article TP or the author's TP on how to improve the article, or even, in the case of notability issues, finding more sources and putting them in the article. MB 21:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect this page to WT:NPPR?

All the content currently on this page should probably have been posted to WT:NPPR instead. I can move the archive box over to WT:NPPR as well. OK to redirect? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Most posts at WT:NPPR are by reviewers while most posts here are not. But the volume is so low here that I don't think it would be disruptive. MB 14:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@MB and Novem Linguae: I don't think it would be a good idea, that's why I deliberately didn't do it when I created all the new pages and sub pages after creating the NPR user right. I believe it's best to keep the pre-2016 issues separate, and let the tutorial keep its talk page. Most posts at WT:NPPR are by reviewers while most posts here are not. It kinda makes the history easier to peruse and there's nothing that the average NPPer would want here unless it's specifically to discuss the tutorial itself. I don't think it does any harm to leave it here, the page notice and edit notices should be enough - if I were to be ironic though, I would say that anyone who doesn't read page notices or other instructions shouldn't be a reviewer anyway and shouldn't be posting on either talk page, but of course I'm never ironic, am I ? As long as I'm only 'semi-retired', I'm permanently logged in and monitor it several times a day when I'm searching its archives for stuff.

I'm not a coord but it's one less thing for you guys to worry about. - the list of coord tasks is long enough (I wrote that too). That said, it's your call of course. I don't own NPP and I'm just pleased and relieved that NPP finally has some coordination and that you guys are thinking of everything. My feeling about NPP today is that it's like walking into a delapidated, abandoned factory that's been given a new lease of life. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The header says this is a TP for the tutorials, but the questions are general - so people don't notice that or ignore it. We already have one TP for coordinator talk and another for general discussion. I don't see a reason for a third that is functionally just more general discussion (although mostly initiated by people not familiar with the NPP pages). If we do redirect this, note that the WP:NPPR header says it is only for discussion between reviewers and that should be updated. One more question a month at WP:NPPR won't harm anything either, and lots of people watch that page and could provide answers. MB 21:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Duplication of text about drafts?

I see there's rules at both WP:DRAFTIFY for "During new page review" and WP:NPPDRAFT. Why are they seemingly repeated, isn't there a danger they'll go out of sync? Seems to me would be easier to not duplicate them and just rely on one linking to the other. (I already mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Remind me again, please, but that probably wasn't the right venue.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, no danger. I think I changed this to {{Excerpt}} a couple months ago :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah I forgot to even check for {{Excerpt}}! You're way ahead of me. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that New Page Rewiewing, when done properly, is the most complex routine task on Wikipedia and needs not only a near admin knowledge of notabiity and deletion policies and guidelines, but also a near admin sense of interpretation of them. Hence the comparison is not misplaced. It is important to emphasise the responsibility that goes with New Page Reviewing. Done wrong, it lets spammers, paid editors, libelers and hoaxers get away with it, and scares off good faith users who don't know any better because the WMF refuses to make a proper landing page for them. Done right, it could relieve admins of a lot of their work, and ultimately it could put some of the more experienced reviewers in good stead for becoming sysops. And I still think JBH explains it exquisitely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: thank you. If you think any of my text would be of use in that section, please feel free to use it. I'm not sure how/what to integrate and I do not want to mess up the good work you all are doing on the page. Jbh^Talk 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling without user right RfC

See this RfC clarifying whether editors without the new page reviewer user right may patrol new pages (in the sense of cleanup tags and deletion nominations). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving to draft option

Hi guys, sorry for such naive question but I can not find any option in my curation toolbar which will let me move a page from mainspace to draft. Can someone please help me with this? Thank you, Mr RD 17:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK this option is either still under discussion or has been queud fo attention by the developers. In the meantime THere is nothingto prevent any editor for doing it manually.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of genuinely spam articles, why notable articles are taken to WP:AFD?

I don't patrol pages everyday. Still on an average, always I managed to find 5-7 WP:FAILN articles, some of which were completely spam. Nobody noticed them. I am giving only few examples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopma.in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamanti (Company), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bishop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Teja Nath.

Almost all of my AFDs and prodded articles were nominated weeks after article creation. Inspite of having many patrollers these articles don't get noticed, and no one will ever find them.

Sometimes notable articles are tagged as "This article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline", as the article is unsourced.

Some WP:FAILN articles with fake references and blogs as reference, twitter, facebook and youtube pages as reference, which actually have zero notability, are not tagged with notability concerns or nominated for deletion. As I found with Rebecca-Maria-Euphemia Castranova, Tan Songyun.

While notable articles are sent to AFD, as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess and the Pony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Heal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roop Kumar Rathod. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As the editnotice on this page says "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Cabayi (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed that we have a backlog of 13,000 articles in the NPP feed. The oldest are from September. It's likely nobody else has seen those articles and this is exactly why we need more patrollers. As for why notable topics are nominated – people make mistakes. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Scope of this talk page

The edit notice on this page says: "This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials." Where do we expect general discussion of the New pages patrol process to take place? You will see from above that there are a number of editors with questions on the process. Perhaps the discussion of the tutorial ought to be moved to a talk page specifically named for that topic? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

second line of the notice: "General discussion for REVIEWERS takes place at Reviewer Talk." Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can read that. But what about discussion for the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who don't have the new reviewer privilege? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

At a quick glance, hovering over the signatures, popups shows 3 posts by non-patrollers. There's nothing preventing, or even discouraging, comments by other editors. If you see nuances of inhospitality please fix them. Cabayi (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

... which isn't to say that the profusion of talk pages couldn't do with some clarity. Personally I'd prefer some rationalisation rather than further profusion. Cabayi (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on hasty tagging at VP

There is a pending RFC at the Village Pump (proposals) to require a 30 minute delay after article creation before tagging an article for deletion under A7 and perhaps other criteria. Individuals interested in that topic should opine there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the scrapping of the AfC process

There is an RfC at WT:Drafts asking if the AfC process should be scrapped altogether, which participants of this project may be interested in. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting a longer backlog again

Discussion moved to WT:NPR

Now we have 15500 and it is steadily growing for the whole month. I think we never had it below 12000.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC) @Ymblanter: is it that there's not been enough qualified candidates applying for the tool? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC) I think we have a steady stream of candidates, but apparently they work all together slowlier than the backlog grows. I am sure Kudpung has some insight.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Just letting you guys know that I posted a notice here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Edit-a-thon) that may interest reviewers. Summing it up, University of Victoria library staff have been encouraged to create pages on Wikipedia and are attending a talk/workshop/edit-a-thon with Dr. Connie Crompton today. I know someone who works there and just told me about it so thought I would let you all know. Hope this helps --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Update from the WMF

I wanted to give a heads-up on some work the Foundation has been doing on this issue. A bunch of us got together at the Vienna hackathon and started working on some data collection and analysis around the issue of the growing NPP backlog, particularly around the potential effectiveness of the proposal to limit page creation to auto-confirmed users.

We should have a report early next week with this and other data, along with some analysis and potential next steps. We are looking forward to getting your feedback on this and identifying ways the WMF can support the community here. TNegrin (WMF) (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Update from the WMF

 – TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfect articles from 2001 at the top of feed

I rarely use new pages feed. When i opened it today, at the top of the list were USS JFK, USS Kitty Hawk, and USS Constellation. I skimmed a little through their history, nothing was out of the ordinary that caught my eye. I dont think these articles were renamed/moved. I am curious why they showed up on top of the list. And no, i had not selected "oldest" filter. Can somebody explain please? —usernamekiran(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Kiran, I'm assuming you mean USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) and the content pages rather than redirects or disambiguation pages. I didn't check the others, but for the Kitty Hawk, this edit created a redirect for no reason, and the subsequent restoration of the page to article status triggered it being in the new pages feed. The reason for this is that creating spam pages from redirects was a way people got around NPP. Adding them to the end of the backlog means they get dealt with very quickly by some of our more experienced reviewers.

Also, as an FYI, almost no one monitors this talk page and WT:NPR is going to be your best bet for getting eyes on something. If its a simple question like this I also don't mind if you want to reach out to me on my talk page, since I normally answer the perennial questions like this anyway :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The page is watched by 337 users, 91 of whom visited recent changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked that. My point was that the other page is typically much more active. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed correct; this page is not for discussion of specific cases.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be nice if

There were a snazzy backlog defcon template here like over at WP:Reviewing pending changes. Pariah24 (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

How is the "tutorial" a tutorial?

Let me start by saying I'm deeply grateful to the NPP community. I'm honestly baffled how the content on the project page can be considered a tutorial. Here are some examples of comprehensible tutorials:

• How to Combine Photography & Type for a Dramatic Effect
• Ruby in Twenty Minutes
• Establishing a non-profit
• Wikipedia:Page Curation/Tutorial

They are built around step-by-step instructions, examples / a specific case study, and a minimum of jargon. -- The Cunctator (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be titled 'instructions' instead. It doesn't need to be a "tutorial" in the truest sense of the word because NPP isn't geared toward newbies but toward experienced editors that know most of the jargon already. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed Flag - Yet Another Issue

I have yet another issue with the way that the Reviewed flag is set almost automatically as soon as a reviewer looks at a page. See the history of Todd Lumley. The actions taken by the reviewer, User:Reddogsix, were quite appropriately to add tags to the article. It does not appear that Reddogsix ever did anything that was meant to mark the article as ready to be indexed for Google. However, the article is now indexed by Google. It appears that almost anything short of a deletion tag causes an article to be marked as reviewed and so available to be found by Google. Should I be reporting this somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost any action using the page curation tool results in the article getting marked as reviewed. Reviewers should know that they should unmark the article if they haven't completed the review. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft to article

When drafts move to article space, do they show up in Special:NewPagesFeed? Is there an easy way I can make sure CSDable pages don't slip into article space? Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they show up in NPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification and guidance for draftification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We seem finished here. Taken to Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#policy_for_Draftification SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The practice of unilateral draftification could use clarification and guidance. Note:

• NPP encourages draftification, at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Drafts
• There is a nice script to draftifying, including a nicely worded notification of the author. User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js

This proposal for guidance follows up from discussions at:

• Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_5#Request_for_Clarification_About_Moving_to_Draft
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_of_userspace_drafts_with_afc_template_applied_by_another_user and
• Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5#RFC:_Clarification_over_main-space_to_draft-space_moves closed with "'yes, but,' no, unless,' 'it depends,' or 'under certain circumstances' " per Katie^talk 22:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)"

I propose, as a draft to be modified/improved, that guidance for draftification should be:

A page in mainspace may be moved to draft if all of the following are true:

(1) Has some merit

(2) Is not good enough

(3) And there is no evidence of active improvement

Expanding on the above:

Has some merit

(1a) eg. The topic is plausibly notable (if not, it should be deleted, CSD#A7 or AfD). Do not draftify junk.

Not good enough

(2a) The page is obviously unready for mainspace. It does not meet WP:STUB.

(2b) The topic does not look so important, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace.

(2c) The topic is not a new topic likely to be of interest to multiple people (e.g. Current affairs).

(2d) The page is a recent creation, by an inexpericed editor. (old pages, and pages by experienced editors deserve an AfD discussion)

And no evidence of active support

(3a) There is no evidence of actively working on it.

(3a) There is no assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history, or on the talk page, or a revert of a previous draftification.

Qualifications and responsibilities of the draftifier. To unilaterally draftify, you should:

(4a) have the New Page Reviewer reviewer right (includes all admins)

(4b) Notify the author (eg as facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js)

(4c) Be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

Advice for the authors of draftified pages:

Authors of draftified pages should try to understand and respond to the reason for draftification, and then use the WP:AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. The author is encouraged to ask the draftified questions, or to use the {{Help me}} template. However, author has a right to object to draftification, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You obviously put a lot of thought into this, but there are too many steps and rules to remember and interpret. The Wikilawyers will turn this kind of a checklist into a weapon of harassment. The pages that get moved to draft are generally quite new ones that have some major flaw, but where deleting them is too harsh. On the rare occasion I've sent a page to Draft I immediately use the AFCH tool to request a review on behalf of the creator. I may then do the review or leave a comment of explanation and let someone else review. This is a lot friendlier message to the often newer editor then DELETE, tells them where their page went, and how to fix it. Some new editors get an AfD or PROD notice and post on my talk page that the page is already deleted. At Draft we can guide them through fixing the problems. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I closed the RFC you mention as 'no consensus', and I clearly stated that in big block letters at the top of the result box. I said there were too many answers of 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', and so forth, not that those widely differing answers were any kind of result. The RFC was poorly formed, and I suggested a new one. You should modify your statement. Katie^talk 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is good guidance. It reflects pretty much what I do when patrolling. Perhaps it would helpful to make it clear that it is a guideline to be used with common sense, and not a set of rules. - MrX 12:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac is cavalier with his processing of drafts, he would do well to be constrained by sensible boundaries. Katie, I think the paraphrase well reflects the discussion and the excellent close as a whole. If you disagree, you may modify my text, but I'd prefer to see you comment on the proposed documentation as to whether it reflects most of the input to that RfC. MrX, thanks, my goal here is to update documentation of accepted good practice. I think the current usual practice by NPRs of draftification is necessary and appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, thanks for your work on this. Following Katie's suggestion for modifying in line with her close ( I think making it clear it was no consensus is a good idea), I think this would work very well as a Wikipedia -space essay on the topic. I wouldn't want to add it to the tutorials since they are already pretty long. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The place for the detailed documentation is probably WP:Drafts. Talk about it here because most draftification is associated with new page patrol. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree as to point 3

I partly disagree. In particular, I disagree as to point 3, that there must be no active evidence of improvement. The pages that I think should be draftified are pages that are new in the NPP queue, and typically have "holes", such as blank sections (e.g., "Career" is empty). These pages should be draftified, not because there is no active evidence of improvement, but because there is an obvious need for improvement, in that, in their current condition, they could be speedied. Insisting that there be no active evidence of improvement will leave these placeholders in article space for a few hours until a less patient patroller applies A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Something I see missing from my proposal is that draftification should be OK for a page this is immediately speediable. With a separate dot point, such as: "Any page speediable under a CSD#A* criterion may be draftified at the reviewers discretion", would that alter your opinion. My thoughts on (3) is that you shouldn't normally be draftifying something while it is being written. If you continue to disagree, I would withdraw (3), so as to leave the guideline silent on the matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Anything that is eligible for speedy deletion, in the discretion of the reviewer, addresses that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not quite anything. Valid A1s, A3s, A11s and perhaps A5s should not be moved to draft space. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As objective as the CSD criteria are, there are still boundary cases. If in doubt, better surely to draftify with the nice automessage than to delete? If some NPRer is repeatedly erring in draftifying things that should have been speedied immediately, I think a brief word would be appropriate. Indecision between speedying and draftifying means it is well away from being approved. I think this is a non-issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

True enough. When i said valid, I meant to imply clearly valid. To move a true empty A1, contextless A3, etc to draft would be poor judgement, but as you say a word could manage that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to the initial post: a missing section is not a valid reason to speedy, unless it leaves out the basic claim of significance -- which of course it might do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Draftifying should not just be an alternative to some of the CSD criteria, incomplete pages often are better draftified even if no speedy deletion criteria applies. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BITE

If an article was recently created, and the creator might plausibly be in the process of adding some or all of the missing pieces, esp if the creator has been editing in small chunks, then draftification might well be a form of WP:BITE and should be delayed for at least an hour. This might fir with the "active editing" requirement above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like instruction creep, so I don't support the hour timeframe (its longer than any of the accepted grace periods in NPP). I do support the idea that it should be explicitly mentioned not to draftify an article immediately after creation, just like you shouldn't tag an article immediately after creation. At the end of the day, our most experienced and active NPP people actually have very good judgement on things like this. NPP gets a bad rap because of inexperienced users who don't have the right tagging articles for A1 or A3 a minute after creation with Twinkle. I haven't seen much draftification from that crowd, so I don't really think this instruction would help much. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It is already noted in places that tagging and deletion should not happen within minutes of creation, it doesn't need to be noted everywhere. Dot point four of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers is clear enough, and an excellent place to point people who are a bit bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be noted more places until it stops happening. We won't know if it happens with draftification until that becomes more common, and until more such moves are routinely reviewed. With speedy tags three is at least always a reviewing admin or editor. Perhaps articles draftified should be placed in a tracking cat for possible review? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I asked a closely related question here. The answers are not fully satisfying. I think a log of draftfied pages would be good. Perhaps a draftified articles category would suffice? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We have the AfC by day cat, which is where most of them go, so that can work. I also think that we're missing the bigger picture here which is that reviewers tend to draftify articles that otherwise would likely get deleted as an alternative to tagging, not as a way to avoid scrutiny which seems to be the implication by people who are wary of the practice. Draftifying serves as a way to actually prevent biting new users and I'm afraid adding excessive instructions and procedures would make people just go the simpler route of CSD/PROD/AfD, since most of these articles qualify under one of those processes. The current proposal does a good job of explaining current best practice without getting into instruction creep. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving an article to draft is not WP:BITE as long as message is left on the user's talk page letting them know where to find the moved draft. It's a very reasonable alternative to deletion. Adding arbitrary delays to an already onerous process is not in the best interest of achieving our overall goals, which happen to require a huge amount of volunteer time for maintenance and cleanup. Reviewers should use good judgment and be prepared to justify moving any article to draft if called upon to do so.- MrX 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving to draft is actually the least BITEY option. For articles that are obviously incomplete, as a NPP the only other option option would be to tag bomb it (discouraging to new editors but more importantly doesn't really do anything), PROD, XfD, or CSD are far more discouraging than Draftifying. Are you suggesting that we leave obviously deficient articles in the namespace for an hour or more just because of feelings? Guaranteed if you try to implement this someone will PROD or XfD the article in the first 20 min instead. Like it or not many people patrol from the front of the queue, and banning its use in the first hour is tantamount to banning altogether. As for the overall proposal, I disagree with point 3 that there must be no active evidence of improvement: they can continue improving the article in the draft space, unfinished articles don't belong in the main space IMO and it is an easy process to move back when ready. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A large majority of all the articles in mainspace are "deficient". The project-wide for consensus is, and has been for many years, that unless an article is unsalvageable, we leave it there (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy). If we're not willing to do the work ourselves, we tag them for improvement and hope somebody will one day. This is a policy: WP:PERFECTION. So I see at least two more options that are less bitey than booting an article back to draft: 1. improving it yourself; 2. tagging it and leaving it in mainspace.

I find this trend towards draftifying articles that aren't deletion-worthy but aren't "good enough" (a vague and subjective standard) very worrying. Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back; these rest probably no . I see 90% becoming abandoned, which makes this a form of "soft" deletion with none of the strict criteria, discussion or oversight that the community has insisted every other deletion process must have. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe, that is all correct. No article is perfect. Everything is mainspace stays unless it may be deleted. Draftification is a good idea for topics that might be good, but if taken to AfD would surely be deleted. Anything speediable under the A* criteria would therefore be a good candidate for draftifying. Similarly, anything that would be surely deleted at AfD, or via PROD, may be better of being draftified. On draftification, there is then an easier opportunity to engage in conversation, such as about minimal sourcing for minimal content to establish that the topic is notable. New Page Reviewers are expected to know the likely outcomes of AfD, and so their personal judgement should be enough. If anyone disagrees, it must be moved back to mainspace, where it will likely be immediately subjected to AfD (does the above draft material on a guideline include this?). "Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back"? Well, here I have a related bias, I do not think a non confirmed user should be writing new articles, or drafts. They should instead spend at least ten edits and four days improving existing content, and in particular, introducing mentions of their new topic into new articles. If these mentions don't stick, well there is a pretty strong message to be carefully considered.

Yes, draftification is essentially a slow deletion process for most pages. Conceivably, a random biased editor may decide it is a good idea to draftify every page they don't like. That is why there should be guidelines should be written. That is why a minimum permission should be required, New Page Reviewer being a very suitable permission to be required, and to be risked should the reviewer engage in dubious draftifications and failure to account for them when challenged. But note: without draftification, these pages would be PRODded or tagged for speedy deletion by the NPReviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly share Joe Roe's above concerns. In spite of SmokeyJoe's above suggestions that "draftification is a good idea for topics that might be good, but if taken to AfD would surely be deleted," I have multiple times come upon patrollers who make unilateral draftifcations because they think the page would surely survive AfD, but instead move the page because it's still "not good enough" in their opinion. And their opinions often seem highly arbitrary. I recently had a new article forcibly incubated by a patroller who thought that one reference for a 180-word stub was "not good enough", despite the fact that lack of referencing has never even been a valid criterion for deletion at AfD. A more experienced editor would surely have recognised that such articles are perfectly valid WP:Stubs that deserve to be in article space, so that others may see and help expand it.

I think part of the problem stems from the fact that WP:AFC, which also utilises the draft namespace, has much higher standards than WP:Stub. Many editors appear to be confused and think that that standard also applies to everything in the article space; it does not. This needs to be clarified in any Draftification guideline that may be established. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul_012, do you think that draftifiers are prone to imposing meta:Immediatism, unilaterally? In a large degree, that is beyond the scope of this discussion, if happening it will happen regardless of this proposal. You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. There, I am suggesting that anyone may oppose a draftification to force it back to mainspace and optionally subjected to mainspace deletion processes. Much like PROD removals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was already commenting there? (Don't know where above it'd be appropriate to insert a new comment.) Allowing anyone to contest draftification would indeed be in line with the current WP:Drafts page, which allows any (autoconfirmed) editor to publish a draft into mainspace. However, it often seems to be the intention of editors who draftify an article to force an AfC upon it, even though going through AfC is supposed to be completely voluntary (unless there are COI issues). This doesn't seem to be directly addressed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I though this was on a different page, this is the right page. I think all good draftification intentions are to give a page that would be deleted a chance to survive, however, there could well be the perception that the draftifying reviewer is an authoritarian bully, and so as a safety net for such a perception, the author, or any other editor, should have an absolute right object to the draftification. In practice, I think actually bad draftifications are vanishingly rare, but the perception may be real. In the rare circumstances of a complaint, the place to resolve the matter is WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think this thread has accrued sufficient input from Reviewers for it to be closed and moved to WP:Drafts. Some editing is needed (speediable pages may ofcourse be draftified, for example), and probably an RfC at WT:Drafts would be the expected thing. Note: To my best efforts to understand previous discussions and NPR practices, these guidelines document current good, common, practice, and do not seek to change practice. The main things being limited would be non NPReviewers unilaterally draftifying old pages. I note multiple few editors are concerned about the possibility of this occurring. Old pages should be draftified va AfD, non-qualified editors may request draftification of others' work at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NOINDEX timeout at 90days: why?

If my understanding is correct, currently, new pages are NOINDEX'd (i.e. they do not show up for Google et. al.) until they get patrolled OR 90 days have gone by. The rationale is (I think) to remove an incentive to spammers/SEO/vanity pages etc., and protect our readers from such. But then, why is there a timeout, or rather, where/when was that limit decided?

One would assume this is due to a compromise between competing goals either in policy or on the technical side but I cannot find it. What little I could find on the topic is from 2012 in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX, where some opponents argued (rough summary) that more eyes on poor articles is a good thing because it leads to improvement. Yet, one could argue that the stream of new pages has changed significantly since then. When I used to patrol new pages, a good 25 to 50% of pages were COI-created going the full scale from "could be a notable company, though the article is promotional" and "a 13-year-old musician with a Youtube channel". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Kaldari can correct me if I'm wrong, but the expiry appears to originate with this patch in October 2016. It was enabled "to make sure that unreviewed articles aren't noindexed indefinitely" and the 90 days was chosen to match the limit of Special:NewPages (the old way of patrolling new articles).

There was also discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal#I disagree with the analysis. Specifically, DannyH (WMF) explained:

The point of an expiration date is that it encourages reviewers to actually make decisions, rather than looking at the page, making an edit, and not marking it as reviewed. There are a lot of pages that have been looked at and even improved by multiple reviewers, but they're still in the backlog because there's no consequence to just leaving it there. In my opinion, that system will always create a backlog.

– Joe (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, for historical reference, the expiration was originally 30 days, but was changed to 90 days since folks argued that 30 days wasn't long enough to screen out spam. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe's explanation is accurate. Kaldari and DannyH (WMF) are correct - I was part of that decision making process. @Tigraan: you haven't been editing much since May 2017 so you're probably not up to date: in November 2016 we created a new user right for New Page Reviewers (which you don't appear to have) see WP:NPR, and in September we did something to stop the creation of the '25 to 50% of COI created pages' and YouTubers. See WP:ACTRIAL. And this page (see page top) is only for discussing the tutorial, the main NPP discussion page is now at WT:NPR where you are welcome to ask further questions and get help with reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the explanation. Yup, I stopped reviewing when the NPR user right was installed (I did not qualify), and I am aware of the ACTRIAL thing. Sorry for the misplaced post. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New pages feed - suggestion

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T167475

It would be nice if the new pages feed had a date filter (before after or between). Also, given the number of pages per day, being able to specify am/pm or the hour (1-24 in a dropdown) would be a benefit. It would simplify working through the list IMO if it isn't already available. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, this has been requested in phabricator and is tracked at the task above. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@

User:TonyBallioni, thankyou for the feedback. I had a look there. I would endorse the idea of a popup calendar per what I read there. What I didn't see there was the idea of adding a time as well. I haven't programmed for years but I would have thought there would be programming tools (templates)that reduced programming a calendar popup to a single line or two, so all up, it would only be a half-dozen lines of code? Rehards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, While there is currently no solution, I'll note that it is very fast to click through pages in the NPP browser. If you use the 'next' button, you can spam click the button to queue up a hundred or more clicks, and then it will just jump directly to page 100. It only took me about a minute and a half to scroll through the entire list this way, though my mouse isn't happy with me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 it is even quicker if you set the number of items per page to 100 (bottom left), then you only need about 35 clicks to cycle through half the backlog (and you can start from either end by sorting the articles the other way). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Quarantine promotional suspected Undeclared Paid Editor product

Largely intended as an quick mechanism to respond to UPE new pages, please see Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Or_what? and a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Quarantine promotional Undeclared Paid Editor product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

user talk to article?

did not know not autoconfirmed's could do that. Special:Contributions/Mr._Banafea.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Could you please explain better? The user linked has no contributions (unless all are deleted). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

He moved his spammy user talk page to article space. I moved it back. then it all got deleted as spam.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the default tutorial

I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For that reason, notable subjects may be deleted under A7 based on their meager content,

• I think this phrase is not correct. If a reviewer can see that something meets the notability conditions, then there will be something in the text that indicates significance. We do not delete very brief new articles because they are insufficiently documented or explained, but we fix them. I'm going to try to think of a better wording., but if not, I'm removingthe sentence as conrary to deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sentence adds much value and could support its deletion after doing my own thinking about what an alternative might be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

About

Forgive me for asking the blindingly obvious, but is there a simple page or section, with a memorable shortcut, which succinctly explains (to new editors) what WP:NPP is all about? I ask from the perspective of a Teahouse host where I and others regularly find ourselves having to explain why pages don't appear in search engine results, or what happens if they create a new page themselves instead of going through WP:AFC. I always find myself linking to WP:NPP but, right from the outset, that destination page uses a tone of voice clearly aimed only at those interested in participating in the process. There is no introductory "About" section to give a quick overview for those who simply want to know what New Page Reviewing means. So, unless there is a better link someone can give me, would a slight tweak to the WP:NPP page benefit both types of audience? Here's my suggestion:

About New Page Reviewing

Reviewing new pages is one of the most important maintenance tasks on the whole site. It's what keeps bad pages out and, equally important, it gives a boost to new, good faith users who have created their first genuine article. Only when reviewed (i.e. patrolled), are new pages allowed to be indexed by search engines.

There is often a backlog in reviewing every new article (sometimes a few weeks), so our volunteer team always welcomes new helpers. Reviewing new pages requires a thorough knowledge of notability and deletion guidelines. When patrolling new pages, reviewers may also leave helpful feedback to article creators, suggesting further improvements.

If you have sufficient experience to become a New Page Reviewer, please read this tutorial page and then consider if you'd like to apply for the permission. Thank you for your interest in becoming a New Page Reviewer.

You'll note I've swapped around deletion and notability guidelines, as I felt that notability really should come first, followed by deletion. Otherwise it sounds like we shoot first and ask questions afterwards. I've also moved the 'thank you for your interest' right to the end of the paragraph, which I hope balances out the paragraph for those two very different types of audience. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I brought up the idea of a page that would introduce NPP to newbies and there wasn't a lot of support among reviewers with some feeling that WP:NPR served that purposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Other issues" section

I'm a bit puzzled with this section WP:NPP#Other issues. Is there any reason to have such a list of seamingly random bits of advice at the end? Most of it is either already discussed in the body (like what to do with unsourced articles or how to tag stubs), or could easily be integrated into a relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a lot of stuff there. Some clearly belongs there and some maybe could go - I'm thinking stubs is the most likely part that duplicates and could be incorporated and deleted but would need to think/see how that would play out first to be sure. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Not wanting to be fully heretical, but I don't think much harm will result if the whole stub sorting section is scrapped. Just tell them to add {{stub}} if the article is short, and then the stub sorting experts will pick that up and sort it with greater ease than anyone else. And if they don't, it doesn't make any difference to readers. – Uanfala (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Redirects, dab pages and the like

I recently added a small section basically explaining that if the curated articles is say Foo (bar), then the reviewer should ensure this article is reachable from Foo. And there was a bit about the potential for considering creating relevant redirects. I thought this was pretty self-explanatorily helpful, and I was really surprised mention of it hadn't been included before. Is that assumed to be common knowledge that doesn't need explicating? The addition was just reverted, with the explanation that changes need to gain consensus here first, so there we go. – Uanfala (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Uanfala has recently shown an inability to understand policy and guidance on my talkpage and several other areas I'm not comfortable with them reworking the NPP instructions. Let's leave that to users with more experience. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have concerns that some of the instructions are duplicate steps (e.g. MOS issues should have already been addressed) while others add steps to an already long process. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Umm, but the addition wasn't about the MOS. I did trim down some of the duplicate style advice at the end of the page in another edit, but that got separately reverted and that's what the thread I started immediately above is about. – Uanfala (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I've struck the part of my comment that doesn't apply. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• The fundamental question is whose job is it to do the let's call it "navigational curation". Who's supposed to create redirects where relevant, or add enrries to dab pages if necessary? I think new page patrollers are the only party that you can be sure a new article will pass through. The next link in the chain – the subject experts who monitor categories or the subject-specific new article reports – can't be relied on to take an interest in most of what comes their way and regardless, probably have huge gaps in the coverage between them. The previous link in the chain are the users who created the articles, but they're often new editors who can't always be relied on to know how to curate their own work. Of course, my assumptions so far are 1) that this type of curation needs doing – I take it for granted that we want new articles to be reachable by the readers who want them, and 2) that we don't want to create a new user group or a new post-NPP workflow specifically for this purpose (because that will make things too complicated). – Uanfala (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

NPP has enough to do. Adding nav links is an endless imprecise subjective job that happens naturally over time. Wandering off to a dozen pages to add inbound links goes far outside the tool used to do NPP and will just lead to more backlog. Again, you don't have a good handle on the workflow and should leave instruction writing to more experienced people in this area. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of it can be seen as an "imprecise subjective job", but the bare minimum – what I was trying to add to the instructions – is pretty straightforward. If the patrolled article is named John Doe (TV personality), then it's not really rocket science to add an entry for it to the dab page John Doe, is it? And that's what makes the article discoverable by readers; otherwise you can ask what point was there in creating the article if readers looking for it aren't going to be able to find it.
Of course, it's possible to see page patrollers solely as gatekeepers, whose only job it is to filter out the rubbish. But then the current instructions already include paragraphs upon paragraphs about what to do with "passed" articles: stub-sorting, categorisation, project-tagging, formatting for style, and a lot of it is arguably of much less immediate significance, with a lot of it also much easier to track and fix by other editors down the line. – Uanfala (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We should label all the gnoming stuff as optional goming activities. It's good but not required of a NPPer because it can be done by non-NPP approved editors who don't need so much knowledge of deletion and notability policy. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification of related bot request

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 38 § DannyS712 bot 38 DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The NPP Browser

I am learning about new page reviewer requirements, and saw the link for the NPP Browser is not working. Is that only a recent error or is that tool no longer working? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it fell victim to a recent software change on the hosting platform, and the author hasn't gotten round to migrating it yet. Hope they'll manage it at some point; it's rather a useful tool. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other tools that allow for keyword or category searches Elmidae (talk · contribs)? I am starting off on my new page reviewer journey, and thought that would be helpful to be able to sift through the many requests that are out there. Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FULBERT Fulbert: Welcome to NPP. Feel free to ask questions as you go about your work these next couple of weeks. As far as I know it was a one of a kind. It really is too bad that it hasn't been ported over because it was a great tool. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49. Seems a simple way of trying to organize the queue, but perhaps it will be replaced by something even more helpful. Hey, wishes and hopes keep us young! --- FULBERT (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I you don't mind the possible risk, you can access it at http://139.162.191.26/NPP/public/. I found the link at User:Rentier. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPPDRAFT

The draft section suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace.

Primary AFC acceptance criteria is that the article is unlikely to be deleted at AFD. Based on my AFD experience, I beleive safe to say that an article about "a generally acceptable topic" is still not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. The other policy-based reasons for AFC rejection are severe NPOV and copyvio issues. I beleive NPP articles with these issues are usually disposed through G11 and G12.

My preference is that we strike the Draft option for NPP reviewers. I've been told, without supporting evidence, that moving underdeveloped new articles to Draft space works well. If so, perhaps the advice can be tightened up to mesh better with AFC policy.

Some background discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Move_to_Draft_space_as_an_alternative_to_deletion. Please share your thoughts. ~Kvng (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Kvng, I suggest putting this at WT:NPP/R which is the more active place to catch reviewer attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have copied the proposal there. Anyone seeing this please reply at the new location. ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for a discussion of an issue possibly of interest to this project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest (COI), paid editing section

The section was quoted recently at Wikipedia:Help desk by User:SamHolt6. WP:NPP#Conflict of Interest (COI), paid editing states "Paid editors are required to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" This seems to be based on WP:COI which states that paid editors "should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". I suggest that "Paid editors are expected to submit their articles through Articles for Creation" would reflect the wording in WP:COI better. What do NPP users think? TSventon (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made the change as above. TSventon (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TSventon, seems fine. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Feature request

When a page says it's been previously deleted, it would be really nice if there was a link to the deletion discussion. Sdkb (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sdkb, if you use User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js you'll get a link next to the article title (when viewing the actual article) and can see those discussions or logs (if speedy/PROD). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to add it to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements so that it could perhaps get built into the toolbar at some point.

Hmm, thanks! That looks useful, but I'd prefer it just be rolled into the main NPP tool. Sdkb (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• hmm. honestly not simething likely to happen soon. perhaps we could do a script request for a scrip that adds this into the page curation tool. (the copyvio tool is able to so i dont see why it cant be done). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Patrolling Page Boardwalk Pictures

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct avenue to having a page patrolled, but I would like to ask that the page Boardwalk Pictures (which I created) be patrolled. It has already been assessed by WikiProject members, but oddly enough it has not yet been reviewed by a new page patroller. I know you're probably up to your necks already but I didn't want this one to fall through the cracks.MyNameIsMars (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

MyNameIsMars, I'm having a look, will post on your talk page. creffett (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 31#Improving new article edit notice. A better notice that diverts users creating problematic articles could go a long way toward easing the burden on NPP, so this may be of considerable interest. Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Confused

I was considering volunteering, and came to Wikipedia:New pages patrol to learn what my duties would involve. I started reading, and found that I was not absorbing much, because I didn't really know what I was reading about. The page does not start at the beginning.

I am aware of three important tasks done by experienced editors to control the flow of new articles:

• Some take drafts and sandbox articles from the queue of articles submitted for review, and review them, deciding whether to accept, decline, or reject (or, I assume, just throw them back in the queue).
• Some look at articles created directly in mainspace, and decide what to do with them.
• Some look at articles that have been (perhaps provisionally) accepted in article space via one of the two above processes, assess their quality, and if appropriate remove the "nobots" tag.

There may well be other such tasks that I'm unaware of.

And I don't know which of those this page is about. I see terms "Articles for Creation", "New pages feed", "New pages patrol", "New pages reviewer", "Page feed", etc.; and I don't know how they relate to the tasks listed above. The page needs to explain most of this in its opening section. (Unsigned, because I'm only looking for information, I don't want anyone to lean on me to volunteer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.218.134 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorting requests for removal from the redirect whitelist

@DannyS712, Rosguill, and Barkeep49: To keep this brief, it doesn't make much sense to me to list requests for removal from the redirect whitelist with level two headers as opposed to the level three headers that have been used in the past. I understand that the system for requesting removal from the redirect whitelist should be different from the system for requesting addition to the whitelist, but that is precisely the issue. There are not been any requests for removal from the whitelist, so the procedures have not been thoroughly vetted at this time. This is especially the case due to the fact that there are several requests for removal at once, having a discussion about removal from the redirect whitelist is necessary. It would seem to me that a "Requests for removal" section is warranted at the very least. If removal from the list is expected to be commonplace, then I would suggest making a section for "Requests for addition", accompanied by a "Request for removal". If this is only a one time thing, I see no reason to deviate from the structure and keep the headers at level 2. Finally, an additional option would be to make the removals privately on an unassociated user talk page, which is less than ideal in my opinion, but is effective and keeps the removal on a private basis. Thoughts on how to move forward? This is the first instance of a request for removal from the redirect whitelist, so this should clear the air on future proceedings. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: other than the current 3, I have no more in this batch, and future requests are likely to be few and far between. No strong feeling either way DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I was under the interpretation that you only had the three requests at the time, but I wouldn't know whether you planned on making similar requests in the future. Regardless of this however, I was hoping you would be able to shed some light on the situation. Because these aren't typical requests, the question becomes how do we deal with these in the future? Should new page reviewers be allowed to comment for or against? Where are the requests archived? Do they even need to be on the page? How do we sort the requests for removal among the requests for addition, and do we host these both on the same page? I would rather have some sort of discussion about this now before it comes up in the future, as I'm sure these won't be the last removals. If they are not going to occur very often, the biggest question for me is if its even worth it to include them on the page, as the page's purpose is to discussion additions, and the requests for removal are an abrupt change in structure. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: When I request removal, I do so under my authority as the bot op (I'm responsible for the reviews) (except for the one where I requested that I myself be removed, that I did as the user in question) and so they should not be up for discussion. Since users can also be removed as the result of discussion among reviewers, it may make sense to devise a procedure for that if and when it occurs DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712:, sorry for the wait between replies. I do agree that your requests should not be up for debate due to you being the bot operator. However, I don't think that you chose the correct page to make your requests. From my perspective, any requests for removal should be placed in a separate section, regardless of whether they should be up for discussion or not. Looking at the table of contents at WP:RAUTO, the level 2 headers are listed as "Requests", "Dmehus (removal)", "DannyS712 (removal)", et cetera. The inconsistency is unnecessary, so if you plan on requesting any other removals, I would prefer that you do so in a "Requests for removal" section, even if there shouldn't be any debate. Alternatively, you can ask an administrator to do so on your talk page, as you do have the final say. I hope you understand what I mean by this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Curation toolbar down?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T251064

Is the toolbar not showing up for anyone else? Or is it something I messed up? Sulfurboy (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: You can close the bar when you have minimized it (happens inadvertently sometimes). In that case, there should now be an option to re-open it under "Tools" in the left sidebar - "open page curation". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, it's down for me too and DannyS712 also reproduced the error. "Open page curation" is not visible in the left sidebar for me either, although [mark this page as patrolled] sometimes comes up on relevant articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Visible for me; just minimized, closed, and re-appeared the bugger, so this again is weirdly localized. The bar certainly manages some rather inventive bugs... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The weirdest bit is that it does show up for me like 10% of the time. My guess is that there's some sort of issue with fetching the tool API, so it could come down to idiosyncracies about your internet connection. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

NPP Browser appears to be down?

I tried clicking the link for the NPP Browser and it doesn't seem to be working right now. (https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/) Not sure if it's a maintenance window right now or if it's permanently broken, as I haven't used it before. Paradoxsociety 06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paradoxsociety: semi-permanentely broken, since the the author did not update it after a server software change last year, and it's not looking like that is going to happen any time soon. However, there is an older version still up and running: [1] I don't actually know what's the deal with this one (less featured version or backup copy or whatever), but it appears to be fully functional; it's what I am using. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kudos

Official anagram of the New Page Patrol

Just saw the recent newsletter and wanted to say... great work, everyone. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. EEng 18:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s, kind words, but your message would be best placed on the New Page Reviewers' talk page. See above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm congenitally banner-blind. EEng 23:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Un-patrol

I found an article on a different topic added to an existing article. Instead of just reverting this one, I split it out into a new article which is now autopatrolled; I can't figure out how to get it back in the queue. MB 16:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@MB there isn't really a way right now. I have just done it for you. This is a long-requested feature and hopefully we'll be able to get it down the road (I have my eyes on the Wishlist 2021 for the next NPP push). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Where to suggest changes to PageTriage?

I have some suggested improvements for PageTriage (mainly, showing the deletion log of the article) and I'd like to know where to submit these ideas. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Elliot321, you may wish to post this in the correct forum where it will be seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Kudpung thanks, I had forgotten all about this comment. Oh well, the dichotomy of talk-about-a-project-page and talk-about-what-that-project-page-document is lost on all of us, occasionally. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Cite Unseen script to add iconic indicators to sources

Examples of Cite Unseen in action on citations

Recently updated Cite Unseen, a user script that adds icons to citations to denote the nature and reliability of sources. I figure patrollers might find this script useful when it comes to evaluating the sources of new articles. The recent updated added icons to citations that are editable or from advocacy organizations, as well as sources from WP:RSP ( marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted; generally reliable is also available, but opt-in). This is in addition to other icon categories, such as state-controlled, opinion pieces, press releases, blogs, and more.

Just note that Cite Unseen is here to provide an initial evaluation of citations and point out potential issues, but it's not the final say on whether or not a source is appropriate for inclusion (see usage for more guidance). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting SuperHamster, but you may wish to post this in the correct forum where it will be seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of TfD

I've noticed a template discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Uw-NPR series, that may perhaps be of interest to editors who work on NPP, so I'm posting this notification. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Required attribution for copied or translated content

When new articles are created by copying or translating content from other articles or Wikipedias, providing attribution to the original authors is required by Wikipedia's licensing requirements. I didn't see anything about this requirement on this page, or is it perhaps covered on another page here? (I'm not a page reviewer, and this is my first time here.) No page should successfully pass new page review if it contains unattributed copied or translated content. Adding User:Diannaa. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, honestly this might be a bit beyond what can be expected. NPP is triage, and adding a million extra things to check will make the job impossible. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere:, I get it about the million extra things, I really do. I both appreciate New page reviewers enormously and don't envy the work you do, but at the same time, the attribution requirement is just that—a requirement—and stands above things like WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV which are policy thus very strongly recommended but still subject to WP:IAR, whereas WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy with legal implications and cannot be ignored, period.

My main point is that if there is currently no mention of including attribution for translated/copied content at the guideline currently, then it should be added. I wasn't sure if you are objecting to adding it at all, or just saying that we can add it, but with the long list of things that reviewers already have to look out for, you can't expect reviewers always to check for attribution as well; I could understand the latter, better than the former. Leaving it off the list entirely seems like a bad idea, especially since I believe translated articles are a very small percentage of the total (but correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, we can mention it under the copybook section in the guide, sure, but in the absence of other clues I don’t see any reasonable way to check this on a regular basis. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree about not making the NPP workflow more complex than it already is. I also agree that a sentence could be added to highlight awareness of the topic. Perhaps something like If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary or on the talk page, you should add {{Translated from}} to the talk page, and notify the user. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to include something about this, as it is commoner than might be expected even among quite longstanding editors to omit the attribution.Ingratis (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ingratis is correct. Even some long-time editors forget, or ignore it. But for the purposes of NPP, I'm more interested in establishing good habits in new users (and in reviewers who deal with them). I'm not here to point fingers, but if anyone is interested in a relatively new editor (3 years) with 200 article translation-creations, including recent ones at a rapid clip, none of which have attribution, email me and I'll provide a link. I'm sure they are not alone in this, although they are a particularly prolific example. Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Novem Linguae:, I'd like to recommend an amended version:

If you notice a translation from another Wiki and there is no attribution in an edit summary or on the talk page, you should add one to the edit summary. You may use this model:
NOTE: The previous edit of 22:31, October 14, 2015‎, contains content translated from the French Wikipedia page at [[:fr:Exact name of French page]]; see its history for attribution.
This is per Wikipedia's licensing which requires such attribution. For further details, please see WP:RIA.

The talk page {{translated}} template is not required, it's just a nice-to-have; if a page reviewer wants to go the extra mile and mention the template, that's nice, but not necessary. The required bit is the edit summary attribution statement. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Further clues about how this might be worded, can be found in the user warning template {{uw-translation}}, which may be placed on User talk pages of users who forget to include translation attribution, or at Help:RIA-TRANSLATE. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Have taken a first cut at this, using some of the ideas from the discussion above. The section on the page jumped right in to copyvio detection with no introduction about what copyvio is, or where it comes from, so I added some intro text copied from the policy pages about it to provide a segue from the general topic to the detection and treatment of it wrt NPP reviewers. Mathglot (talk)

Growth Features - Mentors

Hello NPPers, following up on Wikipedia_talk:Growth_Team_features#Preparing_to_scale_up_the_Growth_features:_two_questions - what do you think about a targeted message to NPP'ers asking if they would like to self-enroll in the mentor program? This program gives brand new users an option to send a question to a "mentor". I thought this may be a good group to recruit from as you deal with new pages, often by new users that could use guidance. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. You can put me down. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: (and anyone really) - to enroll put your name on this list: Wikipedia:Growth Team features/Mentor list. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent idea!! Atsme 💬 📧 20:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

How can I become a patroler/reviewer

Hello, I want to volunteer in reviewing articles but am not an admin. How may I go about itUncle Bash007 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uncle Bash007. Hey there. Thanks for your interest in becoming a patroller. You can apply at WP:PERM/NPP. However be aware that this permission isn't given out easily. They usually like to see a good track record of WP:CSD, WP:AFD, etc. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Novem Linguae (talk), Thanks for the feedback. It do helps alot and I really appreciate. Will surely apply.. Have a great dayUncle Bash007 (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Reading times

• Welcome: 2:42
• The Purpose: 3:40
• Special:NewPagesFeed: 1:19
• op level areas of concern: 2:03
• Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO): 6:41
• Conflict of Interest (COI) and paid advocacy: 5:09
• Recreations: 0:49
• Sourcing issues: 0:46
• Deletion: 5:02
• Drafts: 1:40
• Foreign language pages (WP:Notenglish): 2:36
• Article titles: 5:06
• Stub tagging: 0:28
• Categorizing: 0:23
• WikiProject Sorting: 0:31
• New unreviewed article: 0:8
• Be nice to the newbies: 2:01
• Unreviewing: 1:42

Reminder

Hello, NPP,

First, I do appreciate all of the work you guys do, it seems around the clock. But just a reminder, it is perfectly okay for an editor to include some limited biographic content about themselves on their User page. You look at long-time editors and some of them have long biographies of themselves on their User page. LARGE amounts of personal content about their interests, their editing philosophy and articles they have worked on.

Right now, I just came across a User page from a brand new account who had made just one edit, that had this content on his User page: His name and his occupation. That was all. No social media accounts, no links to a website, just his name and what he did for a living. Of course, this is the first thing a new editor would do when registering for a new platform, they identify themselves. This is not what CSD U5 is for, it is for webhosting content that is unsuitable for this project, like detailed information about someone's fantasy football league or a chapter of a novel someone is trying to write. Putting a limited amount of biographic content on one's User page is permitted. If it becomes a lengthy resume or CV, that's fine to tag for deletion but just a name? I've seen User pages with just a name on it tagged for deletion before and I can't think of a more unwelcome gesture to make to a brand new editor than to delete a User page with only their name on it (including talk page warnings about this, too).

While you folks are the vanguard for helping to remove unsuitable content added to the project, you are also often the first experienced editor a newly registered account encounters so please, unless they are a vandal or promoting themselves, try to make it a positive experience. Thank you all, you are great editors, and have a pleasant holiday season! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, just so you know, NPP is only concerned with new articles. Reviewing User pages is not part of the "job" here, although the Page Curation tool can be used to scan new user pages, as well as can Special:New pages. I know of at least one Admin that looks at them. Reviewing new User pages is something that people may do on their own accord, but they are likely not NPPers and you will probably not reach them by posting here. MB 03:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liz, We appreciate your long post suggesting how New Page Reviewers can do their job, but in fact many of them have an even greater in-depth knowledge of notability and deletions than most admins. Also, as clearly stated in red at the top of this page: This page is only for users discussing the design and content of the tutorials, not for general discussion about NPP., so it probably won't be seen by the majority of our 750 reviewers. The proper place for discussion and exchanging ideas is here. Happy holidays. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: @Kudpung: Should this interesting discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, which might be the preferred forum for general discussion about NPP? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang, IMO no. There is nothing interesting abut this 'discussion'. The few reviewers who do 90% of the work know exactly what they are doing without needing to be reminded. Besides which there are also plenty of very competent admins among the regular reviewers such as DGG, Rosguill, Graeme Bartlett, TJMSmith, Rosiestep, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Ceyockey, Rschen7754, ComplexRational, Bearcat, Joe Roe, Sadads, and Ymblanter to name but a few; many of whom are true veterans of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

NPP Newsletter

Hello, NPPers,

It looks like there is a missing </div> at the end of the newsletter post so that any subsequent messages on the user talk page appear to be part of the newsletter. Just thought I'd point this out so it's not forgotten in future issues. Thanks and I hope you are having a productive and healthy 2023! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz. We apologize for overlooking that, and there is more discussion about cleanup at User talk:MB#New pages patrol newsletter. Also in the future, I think you may want to post messages like this at WT:NPPR, which is the new page patrol reviewers talk page. I think this talk page is just for discussing edits to WP:NPP. Hope this helps. Happy new year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Student projects

Apparently this talk page doesn't get much traffic so I'm not sure if anyone will see this message. I just thought I'd notify y'all, if you haven't noticed, that in the U.S. we are getting to the end of a school term and I'm seeing a lot of students moving their sandboxes into the main space of the project. Often, they still have sandbox tags on them or reviewer notices. Sometimes they are just moved to "User:Article title" instead of into main space. But most are clearly not ready in any way for main space or "cleaned up".

I just wanted to encourage you, should you come across them, to move them to Draft space, or even back to User space rather than tagging them for deletion. These pages are often abandoned after the school term is over (although I have seen some of them turned into decent articles) but it would be better for the editor if they were moved to Draft or User space rather than straight-out deleted. I realize this is kind of kicking the can down the road but I think the project can handle a little generosity in case these pages need to be reviewed by an instructor to assign a course grade. Thanks everyone for all of the work you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Student projects

 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)