Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

NPP Drive

Morning folks!! Is there any plan to continue the drive for at least another couple of weeks, or even a month. I don't mind putting another couple of weeks into it, even though I've got a ton of work to get through this year. I do plan to do more on a continual basis. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The January drive is now complete, but I'm sure there'll be another one later in the year. You're very welcome to keep patrolling the meantime though. :-) Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The drive ended three days ago and already the backlog is growing again. The drive before that was in October, so if we extend this one by another month we'll have a six month period were there was as many drive months as non-drive months. I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing; this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no doubt that you're right, but how do you think that might be achieved? since it hasn't been so far. More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling? (but are barnstars enough?) Or agree easier-to-implement assessment criteria? or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide? Ingratis (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no magic bullet. Both of those suggestions would help. Awards for regular reviewing is a perennial suggestion that I think is just waiting for someone to pick it up and do it.

I think the written guidance is about right in terms of balancing thoroughness vs. efficiency. The problem is that many newer reviewers—I have no idea why—believe that they have to do a lot more than has ever been stated there. In particular I think the misconception that NPP is responsible for policing notability is in large part responsible for that 'residue class' and needs to be worked on.

In addition to that, steady recruitment of new patrollers is obviously key – as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. Autopatrolled is another important lever we can use to control the rate of articles entering the queue. At the moment people are uneasy about it because of the risk presented by permanent grants, so if someone could resolve that policy knot and allow us to use autopatrolled more confidently, that could be a huge help. Finally, I think we're long overdue an proper evidence-based assessment of draftification and whether it actually helps to maintain encyclopaedic integrity or merely multiplies the workload of reviewers. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well unless I’m completely misreading the NPP tutorial we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. The work you do to determine whether an article is a hoax, an attack page etc. gives you your answer about notability as a by-product in most cases. I don’t have any brilliant ideas for how to keep the backlog permanently lower though. A sudden mass extinction of footballers would certainly help, and maybe admins should be a bit less picky in granting autopatrolled. Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

for some reason the 'redirect' backlog in particular, seems to be getting larger (not sure why)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it's worth noting that the drive that just ended was focused only on reviewing articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think extending backlog drives beyond a month would probably burn folks out. Part of what makes a backlog drive work is that we get a bunch of people to focus on something, together, for a short time.

I really think we need to focus on building a sustainable rate of regular reviewing. Yes, but how? Obvious problem, non-obvious solution. Recruitment efforts are ongoing.

this yo-yo pattern clearly isn't working. These backlog drives are doing their job. They're not getting to zero backlog, but they are keeping us stable at 8,000 unreviewed articles over a six month period. See graph above for supporting data. I think it's safe to say there's no way we would be at 8,000 articles right now without these two backlog drives. So in my opinion backlog drives are very successful, and I plan to keep doing them, perhaps 3 or 4 a year.

More barnstars for regular sustained patrolling? We have a program to reward regular reviewing. @Dr vulpes is the current NPP awards coordinator. Sure, maybe this can be expanded, ideas are encouraged :) Please also see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing.

we are the notability police, but I don’t think that significantly increases the time it takes to review an article. Agreed that modern NPP does have to check notability. I do think this adds a significant amount of time to each review. Opening and evaluating sources for GNG is not fast. However I would not be in favor of eliminating this because it is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability. Most folks want us to do this.

or just let the "residue class" of tough articles slide? This is the nuclear option. If the backlog gets ridiculously high (like >25,000), I will look into software changes to let articles fall off the back of the queue. Not there yet though.

as is having admins processing their requests at WP:PERM/NPP, which we have been struggling with lately. This area has backlogs around two weeks sometimes. Not ideal, but it seems to self-fix. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

[It] is a fringe position to say that NPP shouldn't check notability – it's absolutely not a 'fringe position' to say that NPP does not have to perform detailed checks of notability, which is all that anyone is saying: reread the tutorial (current and past versions), reread the earliest guidelines we had, reread Insertcleverphrasehere's original flowchart, reread past discussions on this talk page, listen to the concerns expressed elsewhere by users with decades of policy experience about (some) NPPer's current bloated expectations. Notability has always been a peripheral concern of NPP, far down the list of priorities and generally limited to checking for obvious lack of significance (CSD-level or near) and using {{notability}} tags to triage more complex cases. Because our purpose is and always has been triage: quickly dealing with threats to the encyclopaedia, then marking less serious and more time-consuming issues for attention by other processes. Who are these 'folks' that have asked us to depart from this longstanding consensus, and do they realise how big our workload already is? – Joe (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. I can't speak for others, but as for myself I did not have the energy to fully review the very large number of changes made to the WP:NPP page, so it may still need additional editing to reflect current practices. I am aware that WAID, a great editor, shares similar views to you on this, and you two may be the main editors with this particular position. I am hesitant to trust years-old diffs for indicating what the current practices are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(Thank you for the compliment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe@Novem Linguae, I kind of agree with both of you. Before ACTrial, notability was a concern, but not the primary concern. Afterwards, it became the major concern because most of the flow of garbage we had been previously inundated with had slowed markedly.

Honestly the only workflow change likely to improve the slog at NPP in the long run is to require sources be in the article, or else be deleted. It is a huge burden on patrollers to have to search the entirety of the internet for notability checks every time someone submits a one paragraph article with no references or links. When the effort form new page patrol exceeds the actual effort put into creating the article... there is a problem (especially when new articles are generated by ChatGPT and similar AI tools).

However, this is not something that WE can change. It's baked into Wikipedia policy, and these disucssions have been brought up before. There are a lot of editors opposed to deleting unreferenced new articles (some who are, and many who are not new page patrollers). This mostly comes down to philosophy, as many view Wikipedia as a work in progress where even poor starts to potentially notable topics are valuable. Many of us at NPP take a more practical approach: we simply can't keep up with the workload of dealing with these 'poor starts'.

What has resulted? Massive burnout, and also a lot of shortcuts designed to try to funnel these articles out of the system; draftification has been used, sometimes against policy, to funnel many of these notable but terrible articles to draft space, where they mostly die.

What is the solution? We aren't going to convince people to tighten the new article standards to require sources, there's too much momentum behind the old system of "collect and improve junk". We can continue to expand draftification of unreferenced articles (tough I believe that the current rule is that we can't draftify a second time if re-created in main space, which ties our hands).

Another solution, for which I believe the technical capability now exists, would be for someone to train an AI to understand Wikipedia's notability processes, and run automated checks on all new articles. After all, if people are using AI to write new articles, we should be using AI to fight back. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere, I think that if someone were to propose that all new articles be required to include at least one citation to a (any) source, that it would be adopted. If you'd like to pursue this, I suggest:

• Don't put any limits on the source. It doesn't have to be independent, or contain a particular number of words, or be available online, or be properly formatted, or anything else. Just one source. A plain old bare URL to the subject's own website, even. We'll raise the standards in the future, but for right now, you need to focus on establishing the basic principle that completely, totally, obviously, unquestionably, indisputably unsourced articles are unacceptable.
• Grandfather in all the existing articles. We'll make it retroactive later (just like we did with unsourced BLPs), when the steadily shrinking backlog of unsourced articles gets cleared.
• I suggest requiring only one source. You might be able to get support for two sources. Asking for more than that could doom the proposal. We can raise the minimum requirements later.

In terms of other considerations, you need to think about whether you want to fight over lists. A "List of other notable articles" might be closer to a dab page than to "an article".

The community will probably want this to be "a policy", though it would make the most sense to put it into WP:N. Start by drafting something like "As of March 15, 2024, all newly created articles are required to contain at least one citation to a source that verifies some part of the article content. This does not apply to disambiguation pages or lists whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g., the List of lists of lists)."

I would point out that this merely takes the existing, familiar, workable standard established by BLPPROD and applies it to all "normal" articles. Familiarity is popular; novelty is suspicious.

Speaking of BLPPROD, I don't think it will be necessary to propose an enforcement mechanism right away, though a sticky prod would be an easy approach. Options might include deletion, userification, or draftification. You might have to reassure people that of course it won't be (or, more accurately, won't start off as) insta-deletion before they can make a second edit, but I'm not sure that it will be necessary to settle that in the first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@North8000, this relates to a discussion we were having recently. I really do think that a minimal, carefully limited WP:PROPOSAL would be successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My main goal was just to evolve towards clarity in this confused area rather than tighten up. I brought up that many articles that aren't "list" articles are actually list articles. And in the context that list article are given vaguer/lenient treatment in the wp:notability guideline. I mentioned that if I were king, I'd make it that a criteria for a list article should include that it's a grouping that it's likely that multiple people would look for/use in an enclyclopedia. If there is an immediate issue/ question it's the zillions of "stats only" "derived topic" sports articles that are going in. For example stats only on some medium level team's results of their 2021 season. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, ICPH's flowchart prescribes detailed notability checking via the box Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage? (GNG). – two or more references. That is an exceedingly quick and easy check. Note the absence of a requirement to go looking for sources, and that if the answer is "no" the most onerous check required down the line (only in certain circumstances) is googling for the existence of uncited sources. And ICPH's workflow certainly represented one of the most thorough takes on NPP at the time it was made.

WP:NPP may not be a great page to link since you recently rewrote it and pushed it more towards your views on notability, draftification, copyright, etc. – well, that's not true. My views on those issues, as clearly stated elsewhere, depart from the consensus guidelines on a number of points. I don't understand what grounds you have to continually assume that I am either incapable of editing based on consensus or choose not to, but I'd appreciate it if you could at least try to evidence your aspersions next time. In any case, I've already linked you to the version before my (or your) changes, which if anything gives even less weight to notability. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

When Novem Linguae says "Most folks want us to do this", I think it might be more precise to say that most folks want Somebody else to do this. NPP looks handy for getting stuck with this (C'mon, guys, you're already looking at all the new articles anyway, so can't you just stretch your mission just a teeny tiny bit to include this adjacent thing?), but it's not the purpose of NPP.

We need someone to do CSD work. That's why we support groups of editors in looking at all the brand-new articles. Attack pages need to be killed within minutes, not when that one guy who specializes in Argentinian people sits down to see whether any interesting articles have been created recently. Attack pages hurt people right now. Copyvio pages cause legal liability right now. NPP is the "someones" that banded together to find and kill these urgent problems.

By contrast, we only want someone to do notability work. If we have an article about Non-Notable, Inc. for a while – even if Google chooses to index it, even if it deserves an {{advert}} tag (but not if it's actually blatant advertising), even if it's 100% WP:Glossary#uncited – it's not the end of the world. Anyone can check that; it doesn't have to be NPP, and NPP doesn't have to do it. We do have some editors who want this done systematically. They also overlap with the group of people who want it done by anybody except themselves (also, for the reviewer to have their own level of understanding of the subject matter and their exact same views about what subjects qualify for a separate, stand-alone article).

To give you a little potted history of NPP, it might be helpful to look at the versions in place when some of the editors in this discussion first joined Wikipedia:

• When Joe created his account (March 2005), here's what WP:NPP said. They had just given up on the original NPP goal, which tried to make sure that each article was reviewed at least once, by having editors sign up for hour-by-hour slots every day. You were supposed to check all the new pages from, say, 11:00 to 11:59 on March 18th, and then put your name in the log to let everyone know that they could skip those. About a third of the instructions is related to speedy deletion criteria (CSD wasn't a policy back then).
• When I created my account (August 2006), NPP didn't exist. The original had been merged to RC Patrol. This is the first version after @Chaser split it back off. Note that NPP was discouraged from sending articles to AFD (called VFD back then). Conclusion: NPP was not the notability police.
• When Novem created his account (January 2009), here's the state. Slightly more than half the text on the page is about speedy deletion. NPPers are encouraged to improve articles, including to "try to find some [sources] yourself", but my recollection of that time is that mostly, they tagged them instead of improving them.
• When Ozzie created their account (October 2012), we have this version. The Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School has just been added. The "school" was largely the invention of a single editor who had a very expansive idea of what NPP should do (e.g., checking for spelling errors) and thought that it was essential for NPPers to check dozens of criteria for each page. The page opens with attack pages, hoax articles, and copyvios. It has introduced the concept of "Patroller checklists" and has long lists of things to consider. The article checklist on that date included 10 separate points, the first of which was CSD, and the second of which was "Does the article belong on Wikipedia?" This represents the introduction of the idea that NPP is a comprehensive peer review of everything about a new article, rather than primarily a CSD-focused shop.
• When Ingratis created his account (January 2019), we have this version. The main change is that (since October 2016) we now limit the people who can take a page out of the review queues. The page is four times as long as it was ten years ago. It boasts about being one of the most important and vital tasks done by editors with "near-admin knowledge" who "review correctly and seriously" (emphasis in the original). It declares its purpose to be "policing the quality of the project" to prevent "poorly written" and "bad pages" from being indexed by search engines. But when you cut through all the puffery, what's left is: the #1 job is to find and kill attack pages, hoaxes, copyvios, and CSD-worthy spam. Everything else (and there is a lot of it) is secondary.
• Today: The page has been shortened a little, and the flowery, self-congratulatory (inspiring?) language has been removed. A simplified flowchart is offered. The list of tasks is pretty burdensome, but no longer asks NPPers to check grammar and spelling.

So that's a little history, and now let me add: That effort to make NPPers do it all? It didn't work. A couple of editors advocated very strongly for their view, complained at editors who didn't follow their advice, ran off folks who disagreed, and generally did everything humanly possible to develop NPP into their ideal, but what actually happened was: Editors interested in NPP quickly checked brand-new articles against the CSD criteria. If the articles didn't qualify for CSD, they moved on to another article – silently, in many cases (which leads to those backlogs), but they kept looking for CSD-worth problems.

I recommend looking at the page views for new articles some time. It is not unusual to have a BLP get 20 page views in the first hour and 50 page views in the first day – and to still be in "the backlog" a week later, because most people doing the core NPP work don't really want to do all of these "extras", so they do the parts that they care about and declare the rest to be Somebody else's problem. We're doing that work inefficiently (so many editors re-re-re-checking for attack pages without any of them knowing that someone else already did that), but they're dong the essential work of NPP, which is to get CSD-worthy pages off to CSD as rapidly as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Amazing history. Thank you for sharing all this. I had no idea that OG NPPers used to assign timeslots to each other. What an intriguing way to do NPP.

The overall vibe of your post seems to be "the process is too complicated and should be simplified". I can think of several other projects on Wikipedia where the process is complicated and has not been simplified, so those might be worth thinking about a bit. Four examples that jump to mind are WP:GOCE, WP:GAN, WP:AFC, and WP:CCI.I don't know much about GOCE so will skip that one.

I have the impression that GAN clears their backlog every once in awhile, especially around WP:WIKICUP time, so is an example of a complex process that is often backlogged but works sufficiently. Kind of like NPP. WP:AFC is also very similar. AFC oscillates between months-long backlogs and zero backlog depending on when and how successful their last backlog drive was. So another complex and sufficient process.

I think WP:CCI is not so successful though. Their process is too complicated and they have reached the point where they will never clear their backlog. But they have elected not to simplify their process. Perhaps because there is a legal pressure for them to not take shortcuts and a legal pressure to check every diff.

It's almost like these complex process WikiProjects are on a slider, with one end of the slider being successful / able to reach zero backlog (AFC), the middle being unable to reach zero backlog but able to stay stable for the time being (NPP), and the other end being so horribly backlogged that they will never catch up (CCI).

I'm not sure what my conclusion is. I guess my conclusion is that while it is a lot of work to have a complex process such as GAN or AFC or NPP or CCI, before simplifying it we will need to carefully weigh 1) whether it is sustainable (NPP for the moment is holding steady at 8,000, so yes it is) and 2) whether the process provides value to the encyclopedia (I think most would agree that having a systematic way to check notability is valuable to the encyclopedia, so I think that's also a yes).

With that in mind, I guess my conclusion is that NPP is hard work, but it is desirable to keep the current process, including notability checks, at least until we get too overwhelmed to continue. As I mentioned in my OP, if the backlog gets ridiculous, such as >25,000, that'd be a great time to revisit our options and actually make a change. But for the moment we are holding steady at 8,000, and it'd only take one Onel5969 or JohnB123 getting active again to achieve zero backlog.

One final thought: we did simplify our process a year or two ago. ICPH and others discussed it and agreed to make the "gnoming" steps of the flowchart (maintenance tagging, WikiProject tags, categories, stub tags) optional instead of mandatory for NPP. So that is a win for NPP process simplification. Gnomes can handle that at their convenience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there's another consideration, which is whether the benefits of having One Process to Rule Them All outweigh the risks.

Generally speaking (CCI is the only exception to this that I'm aware of), if an editor is handling something important, then everyone else leaves them to it and does something that either appears to need the help or is more fun. When a process looks like it needs help, someone will usually step up to help. So, e.g., when I answered nearly all of the questions at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, then the editors who would have answered those questions found other things to do. When I (deliberately) stopped answering questions, others stepped up. End result: ELN no longer has a bus factor of 1.

If you take this concept and zoom out a little, then the bigger a group's process is, the bigger the risk to the community. If NPP handles (for example) CSD only, and leaves everything else to others, then we have pretty good resiliency. If NPP all quit en masse, we'd have to replace their CSD-screening function immediately, but the entire rest of the system would be okay. If, on the other hand, NPP handles not only CSD, but also notability, de-orphaning, adding maintenance tags, resolving draftification disputes, helping newbies, stub sorting, correcting Wikidata's interlanguage links, explaining notability concepts, reviewing AFC's work, fixing formatting, WikiProject tagging, checking grammar, and more, then the disappearance of the group, or even a drop in their productivity, would be a nightmare. Everything would break.

The first simplification that I would suggest is that you figure out what's optional and simply remove it. Instead of marking an activity as optional, don't mention it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

IMO the biggest and most essential NPP job is implementing the "should this be an article?" criteria. And 90% of that work is wp:notability not CSD. And 80% of wp:notability work is handling difficult article situations. For example, examining non-english sources fluently enough to determine if they meet GNG, or searching for and evaluating non-english sources on an article with no GNG sources before AFD'ing it. Or trying to figure out what to do with an article which fails wp:notability in a topic area which has a strident fan club active at AFD. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

North, do you think that it is important for the "urgent CSD tagging" group to be the same group as the "determine notability" editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think that it's per se important that those be the same group, but I think that the as a practical matter, they need to be. They are both "should this be an article?" functions and separating them would mean that nearly every article would need to be reviewed twice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This makes me think that perhaps we should have two different review buttons, one for "passed CSD criteria" and one for "Passed full review and notability checks". This would allow CSD-focused patrollers to find their targets quicker, and allow notability focused patrollers to work on the other cases in a more relaxed manner.

Currently we are doing this anyway, except at busy times we have 20 people looking over the article as it passes the start of the queue, and stepping over each other in their eagerness to press the CSD buttons, meanwhile at quiet times when there aren't many reviewers some of these articles slip through into the queue, meaning that very occasionally CSDable articles slip through into the months long backlog. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 00:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that having separate buttons would help a lot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, more buttons has pros and cons. It would be easier to hit the buttons because there'd be less steps, and folks could more easily specialize. But two buttons means twice as much button clicking (technically doubling the backlog), twice as many log entries, and more data in the PageTriage SQL database. Also, CSD and notability aren't the only mandatory checks at the moment either. We're also supposed to do copyvio check and title check. So that could mean up to four buttons. Finally, are we confident that the same amount of reviewers would be able to do twice as many reviews? Hmm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyvios are {{db-copyvio}}, and therefore covered by CSD.

I think that if you clicked the "passed full review" button (titles would be part of that, no?), then it would make sense for it to auto-click the "passed CSD-only review" setting.

This type of change would result in twice as many log entries, and changing the log format is on my mental list of scary things to do, but (a) it's not as scary as changing the prefs database, and (b) if it lets editors reduce duplication and understand which work urgently needs to be done, then it's probably worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume that Novem is referring to the copyvios that clearly need revdel or listing at copyright problems. These are obviously problematic and need to be hidden from public view, but have some salvageable content for G12 to not apply. I think most of the copyright-infringing articles at NPP fall into this category, as G12 are usually taken care of quite quickly. VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like that would fall into the full review, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In my mind, I am grouping "make sure Earwig's copyvio tool has been run on this page and the results analyzed by a human patroller" and "glance at the page and look for CSDs" into two different groups. But yes, I suppose you could combine that step if needed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing It is interesting what you say about new pages getting 50 views in the first hour and still remaining unreviewed. I've always known that there was a ton of 'doublework' going on, but it would be interesting to quantify how much of this there actually is.

An idea that just occurred to me now: What if we could automate a system that temporarily removed a page from the New Pages Feed whenever a new page view was registered by a new page patroller or admin? Even a few minutes being dropped out of the queue would massively cut down on duplicate work, especially at the very front of the queue. This would have to be a toggleable option in the feed obviously; a default exclusion of "viewed by a patroller in the last 5 minutes", but that could be turned off for people that want to look anyway.

I wonder if we cut down on the duplicate work how much more efficient our system might become? — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356826

This is technically feasible, via a pagetriage_tag like patroller_last_view_timestamp or something. This would avoid collecting any data on who viewed it, and just keep track of the timestamp for filtering purposes. Then we would add something like "[ ] Was recently viewed by a patroller" to the filters menu and default it to unticked. I'll make a ticket to centralize discussion. If folks want this, be sure to comment in the ticket or leave a thumbs up token in the ticket. Ditto if folks object. phab:T356826 –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Phab etiquette discourages support/oppose comments. Therefore, please disguise all such comments so that they look like they are primarily providing factual information that might be useful to a coder/designer/product manager. The user story format usually works, so try writing something like "As a New Page Patroller focused on preventing attack articles, I want to avoid duplication of effort while checking all brand-new articles as soon as they are posted..." If you want to be this week's favorite editor, then tell them what your problem is ("It hurts when I do this") instead of what your suggested solution is ("So we need to flarble the glibitts"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I often look at and skip articles in the cue. Sometimes it's mood....when I want an easier day I skip articles that should be AFD'd, especially articles which should be AFD'd but which have a fan club at AFD that beats up people who do that. Or skip edge case articles. Some require either fluency in a non-english language to evaluate or search for non-english sources (or lots of slow work with translation tools) When I'm up for a more challenging day I do all of those. Some articles require specialized fluency in the topic or related SNG. Other times I see one that was recently tagged (but not marked as reviewed) by a NPP'er and there has not yet been enough for a chance to develop in the tagged area. If the tag is an area which would cause a fail, it's particularly important to do that but even if in a non-fail article quality area I tend to avoid passing an article that a NPP'er recently tagged. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

On the front of the queue, if you're concerned about someone not reviewing it (e.g., an admin who normally doesn't do NPP work), you could hide it for five minutes (or three) only after two reviewers have looked at it. That should reduce any concerns over the first being a mis-click and resulting in a CSD candidate existing for several minutes longer than necessary. A brief delay would also give those reviewers a chance to finish dealing with it before the next person looks at it. That would increase the chance that the third NPPer would see an already-tagged page instead of an edit conflict. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Samwalton9 (WMF), as he might be interested in these ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability question

In NPP, I came across Coat of arms of the Hauteville family - which is apparently a translation of an equivalent Italian Wikipedia article (by a declared paid editor) about a dynasty on which we already have an article. On the face of it, the article is well-sourced. My question, though, is it actually notable? Looking through results for a search for articles titled "Coat of arms of the", the first several pages of results are all countries, provinces, states or cities. Around 100 results in, there are some individual Polish family results. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - but the article on the coat of arms is several times larger than the article on the family that bears the arms. It seems... WP:UNDUE? And a merge would also be ridiculous. Or am I just overthinking this, it's clearly a notable topic even though the 'main' article isn't that big, and I should serve myself a trout? Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are sure there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then yes, you are overthinking it. The decisions about which article should be bigger, what information belongs in which ones, whether one article should be merged with the other, whether there is too much detail that needs to be cut down, are all things that normal editing processes can handle. But I would be more careful about what the article says and what sourcing there is. For example, consider the following:

A similar but more articulate thesis was made by the Sicilian historian Agostino Inveges, in the third volume of his Annali della felice città di Palermo, prima sedia, corona del Re, e Capo del Regno di Sicilia, a work that was printed between 1649 and 1651. In the views of Inveges, who took up the theses of Giuseppe Sancetta, the Hauteville adopted the new coat of arms, abandoning the one with the two lions of the Duchy of Normandy. The monarchs were to be endowed with a coat of arms "with two stripes, or as Sancetta says: with two bends sinister, chequy gules and argent on a azure field: as is seen in three very ancient wooden plaques hung in the Cathedral of Palermo above the Royal porphyry tombs of King Roger, and of the Empress Constance his daughter [...]".

It ought to be sourced to a modern scholar who's writing about the Inveges book and/or the coat of arms but it's not. It's original research by the editor, since it cites the Inveges book itself. Without having read the book, I wager that the Inveges book does not in fact say "In this book that will be printed in the future, I present a similar but more articulate thesis..." There maybe something useful in the source but it surely does not support all that the article claims. I would suggest checking whether that kind of issue is less or more over the whole article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the exact concern is whether the article is based on sources that cover the topic directly and in detail, or more likely, the paid editor is writing a good article using their own writing chops, then appending sources that look legit but cover something tangentially related, or even unrelated. For example, one could say "this coat of arms is a derivative of the more famous this other coat of arms", then they could build a huge legit looking article with sources that cover that other coat of arms. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nicôle Lecky

There seems to be a bit of a mystery about this article not showing on google, your help is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#19:09,_12_February_2024_review_of_submission_by_Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Appears to have been a bug, if our techie colleagues would like to investigate. It appears a page swap move fooled the curation tracker into thinking it's an old article being moved around. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

MNL League Cup to be draftified

Hello, new reviewer here asking for help! MNL League Cup in the feed should probably be draftified. In this case and for future reference, should I leave this to someone with page mover rights, or is this something I can action myself?

(I notice that the article has previously been draftified; there might be a WP:CIR issue with the author, 20% of whose edits have been deleted.) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need page mover rights to draftify an article. If you use User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, it will automatically tag the redirect left behind for speedy deletion but if you forget to, you can tag it yourself as WP:R2 (WP:Twinkle is a big help in that case).

But if an article has already been moved to draft space once and the creator moves it back to main space ("objecting" to the drafication), in general do not re-draftify and instead nominate at WP:AFD if you think it should be deleted, redirected, or draftified. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT. (Looks like it was moved to draft space again as Draft:MNL League Cup 2 since it appears(?) it was recreated in mainspace instead of trying to move the page at Draft:MNL League Cup?) Looking at them, I think returning either to mainspace isn't the best path but I hope the above helps for future cases. Skynxnex (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you for taking the time to respond so clearly and helpfully; I really appreciate it!! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"Episode 22" and multiple others

A user is creating a series of disambiguation pages titled "Episode n", which all disambiguate to "Episode n" (Primeval) and "Episode n" (Twin Peaks). But there are no articles at those destinations, they're redirects, to List of Primeval episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes. I had listed some of these as CSD (Unnecessary disambiguation page), it was removed, another NPP patroller had done the same, this was also removed. So there is some confusion - are these valid disambiguation pages, or not? My opinion is still "not" - we should not be deliberately linking to redirects, but I'd like to hear from more experienced patrollers. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I was also pondering those redirects. MOS:DABMENTION supports linking to redirects If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link may not start the line (unless it has a redirect that is devoted to it), but it should still be the only blue wikilink. I do not recall, but could have missed it, any sort of general guideline/consensus about dab pages that only link to elements of articles instead of a mix of articles and mentions.

I'm a bit more wondering if the Primeval episodes are actually referred to by their overall position in the full show or not, since no series has more than 10 episode and our episode list has their name as their position in the individual series (the Twin Peaks entries seem fine under DABMENTION). A Primeval fanfic site has an episode 22, https://primeval-fanon.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_22_(ARIT), but it's fanfic and not currently notable. I can't find any sources referring to any episode of the show itself as "Episode 22". So all/most of them probably could be deleted for that reason (WP:G14), unless other shows/things ever are referred to that way as a title. Not sure if it's obvious enough to still be G14 eligible since at least some of them have been reverted by another editor. Skynxnex (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion these disambiguation pages are fundamentally doomed - we can't hope to list ever single epsiodic product in existence with at least 14 episodes, so we shouldn't even try, and, if there are no articles titled "Episode XX (Show)" the dab page should be deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Idea to reduce redirect backlog

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

---

I've been meaning to suggest this for a while now, but I'd like to propose that redirects left behind from page moves by page movers should be automatically marked as reviewed. Page mover is granted to individuals that have demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding page moving and naming, and I don't think it's generally necessary for us to be checking the work of page movers. It may not represent a significant impact on the backlog, but I think everything that we can do to reduce the backlog and the work of reviewers is a step in the right direction and helps to make the workload more manageable.

If there is consensus for this suggestion then we would obviously need to ask @DannyS712 to make adjustments to their bot, or ask for someone else to write something up, but I don't think there's a huge technical burden or hurdle to implementing something like this. Additionally, if there is a way to do so, we could also hopefully apply the same code, in which redirects from a particular user group would be marked as reviewed, to admins. This way we can remove admins from the slow to load and cumbersome redirect autopatrol list to make managing the list easier. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a page mover who is already on WP:RAL. Page movers are (supposed to be) competent with moving pages, and with the backlog, moves by page movers need not be checked. ^Queenof_Hearts 15:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support; this seems like a no-brainer. As for the implementation, searching for one-revision redirects tagged {{R from move}} where the page creator is a member of the page mover group should be enough for a bot to mark it as reviewed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, can we run a query or something on how many of these redirects are still in the queue so we can get an idea of what kind of effect this proposal might have? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm happy to try and figure out the bot implementation if there is consensus for this - I think its probably easiest if I have my bot do this rather than adding a second patrolling bot. Please ping me if you have any questions or if this is closed with consensus in favor and I'll work up a BRFA --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd absolutely prefer you to be the one to implement this if you're up for it @DannyS712. There was also a discussion at one point last May about patrolling based on user group. The difference between this and that suggestion is that this suggestion is strictly redirects left behind from a move whereas the admin suggestion is one that applies to all redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh I saw the discussion last May and I'm still willing to implement that too if there is official consensus in favor of that proposal (maybe restart the discussion here instead of on the autopatrol list talk, which is less visible?) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  @DannyS712: We already implemented autopatrolling admin redirects by adding all admins to the RAL. The suggestion from May is meant to make the RAL more manageable, as it takes a long time to load now and can be a bit of a glitchy pain to manage. I bring it up because I figure if the task will be focused on patrolling based on a user group, then it makes sense to apply it to admins as well to reduce the size of the RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I saw, and I'm happy to have the bot take that over if there is consensus. As for this discussion my understanding is that we don't want "all" redirects created by page movers, just those that result from moving a page --DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yup! That's exactly the suggestion and it feels like the next logical step for us to take :) Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This seems like a common sense way to reduce the backlog. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)  Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:Page mover of this discussion. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure this really affects that group, as it's really only something that members of the NPP team should be concerned about, but I don't see the harm in a notification. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Like Queen of Hearts above, I'm a page mover who was manually nominated for and added to WP:RAL a while back. Page movers are vetted for their track record of understanding PAGs related to page titling, and many of the redirects they create will be straightforward {{R from move}} situations that I wouldn't predict would need much human oversight, so this seems to me like a sensible way to reduce the backlog. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Great idea and anything that can reduce backlogs would be welcomed Josey Wales ^Parley 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Yup, seems like an excellent proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• support good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)01:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose this implementation, although I would support in theory. The page mover and autoreviewer permissions are completely different ballparks. For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue. I'm in support of further developing the WP:RWHITELIST and putting page movers on it (which would cover their moves and also general redirects too), but having page-moves be autopatrolled was never part of the Page Mover toolkit, and is an additional step-up in trust that we're putting into page movers that was never considered for the other 400 current page movers that were previously added to the user group. Future considerations will need to be made that "by granting this permission, NOBODY will see these moves in the new-page-queue, when they used to be visible before", and this fact will be forcefully grandfathered onto every existing page mover. It's a new level entirely, and the redirect autopatrol-list was created as a new avenue to gather the creators of numerous redirects, and evaluate them for a parallel permission, not grandfathering the entire user group.

I was also talking with Josh earlier about having admins automatically be redirect-autopatrolled; I'm not sure if that's the current implementation, but (to my understanding) admins wouldn't even be part of the Page Mover user group (because they'd be able to suppress redirects with the administrator toolkit already). To me it seems that admin-redirect-autopatrolled would be more priority than Page-Mover-redirect-autopatrolled... but once again I'm not completely aware about who gets autopatrolled besides the people already on the redirect autopatrol-list. In any case I would much rather contain the ability for auto-reviewing to be contained with something "NPP related", and the Page Mover perm isn't necessarily that. At the moment I feel the backlog is in a pretty healthy state that is; sure it goes up and down but I wouldn't call the situation dire enough to enact massive new-redirect-patrol bypasses for an entire existing user group. Taking a look at the redirects that get affected, it's really not going to change the total number by too much, and an extra set of NPP eyes I feel would be only beneficial, just in case. I don't know who's account is getting hacked tomorrow, so as long as the new redirects show up in the queue then it looks like it'll be easy patrolling if there's truly no problems. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on the point that autopatrolling page move redirects would be a step up in the trust we place in the page mover group. Page movers are already expected to have a working understanding of the policies and guidelines surrounding titles, and so are almost always presumed to be making logical, informed moves. It's the same amount of trust I think we're putting in them by giving them the suppressredirect flag, for example, if not even less. You also say "For the same reason that administrators are no longer Autopatrolled by default, I don't think page movers automatically should have their moves vanished from the New Page queue." If I'm not mistaken, the reasons behind those two are completely different, so I'm unsure why that's being brought up here. Exempting every administrator's articles from scrutiny by patrollers is not the same as exempting a specific fraction of a page mover's redirects. And just for the record, all administrators are on the redirect-autopatrolled list by default, which naturally includes page moves. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Page movers should be competent enough for this IMO. I personally treat this differently to my views on article autopatrol. Article autopatrol rights deal solely with the creation of new articles and I beieve that other user groups (e.g., NPR) shouldn't get autopatrolled bundled or automatically allocated. However, this idea only grants redirect autopatrol rights only in a specific and narrow way. Besides, page moving is not an easy perm to get. Its minimum requirements (6 months and 3000+ edits) are higher than rollback/PCR/NPR. The other criteria for page movers (beyond the minimum requirements) is intrepreted more strictly by PERM admins compared to, say, PCR or rollback. Moreover, many PERM admins usually only grant a three-month trial, which allows for scrutiny. As such, I think this is a sensible proposal that would not represent a major step up in trust. VickKiang (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Implementation

Okay, so I made a query for all unpatrolled redirects with exactly 1 revision, where the redirect was created by a page mover, and there is a move log at the same timestamp as the edit creating the page:

Query to run

SELECT page_id AS 'pageid', page_title AS 'title', ptrpt_value AS 'target', actor_name AS 'creator' FROM page JOIN pagetriage_page ON page_id = ptrp_page_id JOIN pagetriage_page_tags ON ptrp_page_id = ptrpt_page_id JOIN revision rv ON page_latest = rev_id JOIN actor ON rev_actor = actor_id JOIN user_groups ON actor_user = ug_user WHERE ptrp_reviewed = 0 AND ptrpt_tag_id = 9 # Snippet AND page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 AND EXISTS ( # Only 1 revision based on rev_count page triage tag SELECT 1 FROM pagetriage_page_tags tags2 WHERE tags2.ptrpt_page_id = page_id AND tags2.ptrpt_tag_id = 7 AND tags2.ptrpt_value = 1 ) AND EXISTS ( # Move log from the same time by the same person SELECT 1 FROM logging_logindex lgl2 WHERE log_namespace = page_namespace AND log_title = page_title AND log_timestamp = rev_timestamp AND log_actor = rev_actor AND log_type = 'move' AND log_action = 'move' ) AND ug_group = 'extendedmover' LIMIT 100;

and if there is consensus in this discussion then I'll file a BRFA asking to be able to patrol these automatically. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@DannyS712: while you are working on this, would it be possible to finish Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Protected edit request on 23 April 2022? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster thanks for the reminder - I should be able to do that at the same time DannyS712 (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2024 (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.

Joan Riudavets

There appears to be some confusion with the Joan Riudavets article. There has been past disagreement re: AfDs, redirects, etc., however the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (There is also an error on the article's Talk page.) What needs to be done in this case? -- Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Cl3phact0, I found the AFD they were talking about in the back and forth. So, I have redirected the article again, and asked for protection at WP:RPP. We'll see what admins say about that. The talk page was made when the page was a redirect. That is why it was showing an error when it turned into an article. In general, when there's an edit-war about whether a page should be an article or a redirect, consensus should be sought in a merge or a deletion discussion. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. (For clarity, the logic for the deletion appears to be that we don't want standalone articles about supercentenarians who are only notable for their longevity.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March redirect drive?

Is there any talk of a redirect backlog drive soon e.g. March or April? I ask because at the point of writing this there's over 22k unreviewed redirects, which is a lot more than when previous drives have been started. greyzxq ^talk 20:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a moratorium on redirect backlog drives and hybrid redirect+article backlog drives until we reach zero backlog for articles. I feel that articles and article backlog drives are more important, and backlog drive exhaustion is a concern. We can only have so many backlog drives in a year before folks become exhausted. Unfortunately I think this means that some redirects will go six months without a review and then be auto-reviewed by the software, but I think this is the correct decision here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree about backlog drive exhaustion and where the priority should be. I'm not opposed to another combined drive though, possibly later in the year, provided the backlog for articles comes down a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's also the unreferenced article backlog drive this month, and the GAN one next in March, and whilst I agree articles are more important for redirects, I'd personally be against another NPP drive until at least April. (No talk of another AFC drive at least, as the last one was only in November.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Recognition for consistent reviewing

This was mentioned in the above topic a few times. I started a discussion on it at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Recognition_for_consistent_reviewing and there was support for it but it didn't go much further. As described there, IMO it's a way to build the healthy horsepower that we need on an ongoing basis. I ended up by saying I would list the results in that talk page and then see if folks want this to go any farther. Basically it will list how long of a stretch persons have of doing at least 30 reviews per month starting with January. And I'd do the first listing after month #2 which is February. So if you're interested in this, do at least 30 reviews each and every month. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you did 30 reviews during January and want to stay in on this be sure to do 30 in February. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Britfilm

Not going to PERM because I've never gone before but Britfilm has 600 articles in the past year (~80 in the queue right now) and I am not seeing any deletion controversies. Articles are not massive but they're using proper sources and I don't see what NPRs can do except marking them reviewed. Why go through the motions? Can't y'all just give them autopatrolled? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Their talk page shows evidence of multiple articles being moved back to draft space, not to mention multiple nominations for deletion. I don't think they have a sufficient success record for autopatrolled. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anything recent, but it's a messy talk page. Not sure how tough the autopatrolled requirements are nowadays. I doubt autopatrolled editors have a 100% non-deletion record. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Would recommend posting this at WP:PERM/AP. Each perm has admins who are comfortable processing that type of perm request, and that is the page they watch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, as I said, don't feel ready cos never done that. But if I got this one passed, and if they went on to create 600 more articles this year, I would have had a bigger impact than all the reviews I could do in a year. That's why I am trying to figure it out. I know PERM admins watch this page. So, just give me feedback on what you look for and find comfortable approving, so I can keep an eye out for it. By email, if not here. Please! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not efficient to request it here. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Britfilm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it, but okay, I guess. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

'Mark this page as reviewed'

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358592

Would it be possible to have an "Also mark as reviewed" checkbox added to the bottom of the "Mark this page as reviewed" popup in the Page Curation tool? I've lost track of the number of times I've written a message to a page creator and hit "Mark as reviewed" instead of "Send message", which, yes, marks the page as reviewed, but loses the message I've written. Other popups from the tool have such a popup. To clarify, there are two options when you click on the button - mark as reviewed, or send a message; you can't do both, even though other such buttons have the dual functionality. (Yes, this is "me" problem, but I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone!) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it help if we didn't have the flyout auto-close when clicking a button? You'd have to click both "mark as reviewed" and "send message", but you wouldn't lose your message due to the flyout closing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would work just as well. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Another option would be to copy what we have on the tagging flyout: Add a checkbox saying "Also mark as reviewed" next to the "Send message" button. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Who recommended me?

Hello to whomever makes comments on this talk page! I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. Just curious who did so and why because, after reviewing the guidelines for granting user rights, I'm not sure if I am the right type of editor for working on this project. I'm more than willing to help considering the backlog, but within the range of what is explicitly acceptable by content policies, I tend to be an inclusionist. On the other hand, participating in this would help me gain a better understanding of what content in practice is precluded by Wikipedia content policy where the policies do not explicitly preclude it in detail. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there @CommonKnowledgeCreator and thank you for asking. These messages are automatically sent to people that meet a specific set of requirements like recent edits and no recent blocks. Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here, many of us share that same ideology and it shouldn't be something stopping you from requesting the right. I've been reviewing for 3 months or so and have enjoyed my time - reviewing is something you indeed get used to in the long run and it has helped me understand content policy better and write better content. There's also a program called WP:NPPS which you might consider. I'd encourage you to apply, though! NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here. Agreed. Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. Our judgment calls need to align with typical, average community consensus, rather than an inclusionist instinct.

If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable, you can always focus on easy accepts. WP:NPPEASY. There are plenty of those. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. ... If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable... I wouldn't say that I'd find nominating articles for deletion to be uncomfortable. I've now reviewed all of the "Essential further reading" essays and policy pages at WP:NPPS. Where content is clearly violative of policy, I'm completely willing to delete it and to do so proactively. I guess my only complaint over years of editing and getting into disputes with other editors from time to time is that I sometimes feel that long-time editors sometimes impose reverts to content that the policies don't explicitly preclude and are in a sense enforcing policy rules that doesn't don't exist. But with that qualification aside, I've come to the conclusion that I am willing to apply since this appears to be important work in furtherance of the project and valued by the community. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

NPR-related BRFA

I have an open BRFA to replace EranBot's task of reporting potential copyright issues from CopyPatrol to PageTriage (NewPagesFeed) used by NPR at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

New Page Review of Drafts

At Miscellany for Deletion we sometimes see nominations of drafts that have been nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. These are kept, citing an essay that has a slightly inaccurate title but is otherwise entirely correct, Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity at MFD. They are reviewed for notability and sanity when they are submitted to Articles for Creation. These nominations are almost always almost certainly good-faith efforts by reviewers who are trying to help the review process by reviewing drafts, and applying the same criteria as they would apply to articles. So my question is whether clear advice is needed to reviewers that it isn't necessary to review drafts for notability, and that their effort might be better spent in reviewing articles that have not yet been reviewed. I understand that drafts are reviewed, but they should be reviewed by reviewers who understand that they are primarily checking for attack pages and other BLP violations that should be tagged for G10. Drafts are, when necessary, tagged for any of the General speedy deletion criteria, but mostly unsubmitted drafts can be left alone except by their authors. Drafts are tagged for G11 if they are advertising, but that can be done if and when they are submitted for review. Since drafts are not indexed, most kinds of useless drafts or stupid drafts can be ignored.

I haven't recently read the instructions for new reviewers, so maybe they are clear enough. What I do see is that drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. My concern isn't so much about the waste of the time of the editors at MFD, as much as the time that is apparently being spent by a few reviewers checking drafts for notability, when they could usefully be checking new articles for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, do you have any examples? NPRs should be experienced enough not to do that. It could be AFC reviewers or new editors who are trying to gain experience to later apply for AFC/NPP. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - AFC reviewers also should be experienced enough not to do that, and AFC reviewers would also decline or reject the draft, whether or not they also incorrectly tagged it for MFD. The MFDs in question did not also involve declining or rejecting the draft. Maybe they are new reviewers trying to gain experience. How do I check whether they are NPP reviewers? If they are inexperienced editors without review permissions, should we discourage them, and how? I think that reviewing new drafts and tagging one or more of them for MFD does more harm than good. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, yes, ideally, AFC reviewers should also be experienced enough not to do that, but it would not be a problem for this board. Same with the non-hatted draftspace patrollers. Editors need to gain experience somehow, and in any area, the most effective way to do that, has always been to make mistakes. Some won't repeat once told and go on to become valuable addition to the corps, some that don't listen will have to be removed from the area, as with everywhere else. You'd check for NPP perm here: [1]. For AFC, you'd have to check whether they're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - As a senior AFC reviewer, I am reasonably certain that the editor was not an AFC reviewer. The draft was not on any of the queues that AFC reviewers rely on. I have never seen an editor whom I knew to be an AFC reviewer nominate a draft for deletion that had not been submitted for review. I have often seen AFC reviewers nominate drafts that were tendentiously resubmitted for deletion, but that is not the situation here. So we are in agreement that this was a new editor seeking review experience before being given a permission. So the question, as you note, is whether they take the advice to stop nominating drafts for deletion for lack of notability, which is not a reason to delete drafts. Drafts are occasionally nominated for deletion,and are deleted, as hoaxes or as BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, new editors inevitably make a couple of wrong CSD and prod noms too, they're also seen at AFDs, and in many ANEW and ANI reports, even DRVs, even arbitration requests. It would actually be surprising if somehow MFD were the exception. I would suggest that their nomination could be reverted on the spot instead of being entertained for a whole week. That could be the best way to address disruption to MFD without asking them to stop patrolling draftspace altogether, where they may gain valuable experience with CSDs, copypatrol, username patrol, etc. Whether reverting at MFD could be experimented as a bold action or you'd need to first bring up the issue and get a tentative consensus for it, you'd know better. Best — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah. your original concern was more with patroller time than MFD time. In that case, just what you said, yup. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - Yes, my concern was with new patroller time, not with MFD time. It doesn't take the MFD reviewers long to write Keep and explain about drafts. Reverting an MFD isn't feasible, just as reverting an AFD isn't feasible, because MFD causes a lot of things to be done, including generation of the MFD discussion page (which is the equivalent of an AFD discussion page). An MFD can be Speedy Kept, just as an AFD can, but it isn't clear to me whether either SK1 or SK3 apply. But, as you note, the real issue is new patroller time, and they will learn from the comments of the MFD participants. If the good-faith erroneous MFD nominations are not coming from NPP editors, then experience is the only teacher. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jules Michelet work disamibguation

Hello, how would one disambiguate Histoire de France? Using the original French title doesn't seem correct for the English WP, History of France (Jules Michelet)? IgelRM (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this topic, but we should probably use the WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think is more commonly used, 'Histoire de France' or 'History of France' (Jules Michelet)? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need to be disambiguated? There seems to be no other article at present with this title. Are you concerned that it might be confused with History of France? If so, a hatnote might be useful: {{about |the book|the history of France|History of France}} or similar? PamD 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But perhaps a redirect to Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece (and possibly renaming that section to clarify that it's about Histoire de France) would be a better solution? PamD 14:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's far more information at Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece than in the stub. --John B123 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@John B123: @PamD: So redirect for now and maybe draft this if the creator wants to continue working on it? IgelRM (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not worth draftifying - the content will still be there in the history if this is just turned into a redirect. PamD 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

And then, perhaps, add the same hatnote as suggested above, to the top of the section (which I've renamed to the more informative Jules Michelet#Histoire de France, leaving an {{Anchor}} at the old section heading so that old links still work. PamD 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I have redirected it and informed the creator. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) doesn't say so in so many words, I think it implies that the article about a book should have the original title of the book, if it is written in the latin alphabet, unless there's a good reason not to. There's nothing to suggest that the title should be translated, unless the book is better known in English-language sources by a translated title. In this case, the sources all talk about "Histoire de France", so that's the title of our article. PamD 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My concern was indeed that it may be confusing if someone searches Wikipedia and expects History of France. DreamRimmer: For example, the translation by the British Library uses an English title (History of France. Translated by G. H. Smith). (Category:History of France also suggested that) I think the suggested hatnote is great (dunno if that is still disambiguation work). I assumed sufficient notability based on reviews around Jules Michelet. But the article is low effort even for a stub that I would like to draftify.

(Huh ignoring Salome (play), so generally a Latin name with many diacritics etc is fine but Japanese kanji are not.) IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Latin letters, even with diacritics, can still be understood by anyone who reads English, which is not the case for Japanese. Also, the convention is to create a redirect without diacritics ({{R to diacritic}}) if the title contains them. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It was just a side realization for me and not meant critical. What English foreign titles may be understandable seems rather subjective and depends on the reader's cultural knowledge (Kanji were not a great example but I imagine there are more intuitive script cases). IgelRM (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added the hatnote I suggested above, and a couple of useful categories. PamD 08:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)