:The flochart is a great help. Thanks. [[User:RPSkokie|RPSkokie]] ([[User talk:RPSkokie|talk]]) 13:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:The flochart is a great help. Thanks. [[User:RPSkokie|RPSkokie]] ([[User talk:RPSkokie|talk]]) 13:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like some nice work! It's always good to have as many ways of presenting the workflow as possible, as different approaches work best for different people. This version addresses some comments that have come my way over the years from people that didn't like my flowchart. I think for me I still like the traditional flowchart design as it lets me ignore certain criteria when I go down a certain flow line, but I'm glad that this exists! Well done. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:Looks like some nice work! It's always good to have as many ways of presenting the workflow as possible, as different approaches work best for different people. This version addresses some comments that have come my way over the years from people that didn't like my flowchart. I think for me I still like the traditional flowchart design as it lets me ignore certain criteria when I go down a certain flow line, but I'm glad that this exists! Well done. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::One question though. Why copyvio before CSD? A lot of CSD criteria are instant delete (even if most of them rarely come up nowadays after ACTRIAL), which is why I put them first in my version, since a hate page or contextless page (for example) negates the reason for a copyvios check. I don't think it really matters, as most of these CSD criteria are a lot less common than it was in the old days when I first wrote the flowchart, and when they do come up people will just skip straight to CSD anyway. Just wondering what the rationale was, since you mentioned it specifically in your first post? — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (invite link)For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.For discussion on topics purely relevant to coordination tasks, such as for example - but not only - Backlog Drives, etc., please post at Coordination Talk
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello New pages patrol,
New Page Review queue April to June 2023
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Backlog drive
Hello NPP, I was wondering whether there is consensus for a combined backlog drive (both redirects and articles), as our backlog is massively growing, with over 13000 total pages. Me and some others from the discord server/cabal (circle preferred name) have proposed October, though other months are welcome. Courtesy pings for @Buidhe and @Illusion Flame as backlog drive coordinators, and @Tol as our technical/bot person, and @Novem Linguae as lead coordinator. Comments and suggestions welcome, this is just to determine rough consensus. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a sensible timeframe to me (assuming something doesn't happen in the meantime that drastically brings down the numbers). -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, the extra push is always welcome Josey WalesParley 21:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is being asked weekly at this point. We don't need to plan it months in advanced, just give notice a month ahead of time and do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s fair. We’ll go ahead and plannfor one in October then, given the consensus here and on Discord. Satisfy everyone? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation can be found here. Feel free to improve. @Buidhe Are you interested in helping coordinate this one? If you’re unavailable, @Zippybonzo and I can do it. Just let us know. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd rather sit out this one. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure what the rush to plan this so far in advance is about. We don't know what the backlog will look like that far far away and a month ahead of a time would have been plenty of time. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m guessing that @Zippybonzo just wants to be prepared with the backlog that is rising at an alarming rate, given that most of our attempts to slow it have failed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was think it perhaps time for a sprint on it. It seems to be bigger everyday and not going down. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noticing the growing backlog, is there somewhere also a chart of the average of reviews the reviewers made for each week? I wonder if the growth is due to our inactivity or the rise of created articles in need of a review.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would be nice to see is the trend over time of reviews done vs pages created. Could then almost create an "efficiency" metric. Just knowing the backlog trend and current numbers of reviews doesn't really answer Paradise Chronicle's query. Also to consider on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#/media/File:NPP_unreviewed_article_statistics_as_of_July_19,_2023.svg when a mass message goes out, to see the impact (e.g. the "New pages patrol needs your help!" message on 1st July flattened it for a bit). Maybe the rate has slowed after that, but getting into thinking about differentiation of the curve for the rate of change might be overkill. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ideal. Summary chart don't really show any kind of useful information. We need better analytics. Something that alerts when its starts to drift. I see some of the most active reviewers from last year are not even on the summary charts but a lot of new reviewer's have arrived which is really good, indicative of a vibrant and healthy ecosystem. Personally, I've not done anything for months and months, but could do with a sprint as I suspect by August it will be around 9000 and 12000 by years end. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New flowchart
I made a new flowchart and added it to WP:NPP today. The flow is almost identical to the flow of the really detailed flowchart, except I reduced the amount of detail, put copyvio check before CSD, added several "draftify" cases, and recommended against PROD. Feel free to call out anything you think could use improvement. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat! Wish someone had thought of that a LOT earlier. Would have saved me a few bruises... Sigh... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As all the other optionals have a tool suggestion should "Maintenace tags" not have Twinkle as the suggestion? KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CSD, AFD, and maintenance tags are built into PageTriage/the Page Curation toolbar. I'll go ahead and add "use: PageTriage" in the next version. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very detailed; this will certainly be helpful! I would recommend adding a note to give a grace period before CSD (10–15 minutes) or draftify (1 hour) except for blatant G3, G10, and G12. Although perhaps not strictly codified in policy, I believe it is WP:BITEy behavior to tag for A7 (for instance) one minute after a page is created, so it ought to be discouraged. Complex/Rational 18:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We actually bumped the grace period to 1 hour a couple months ago. It's mentioned at WP:NPP. Great idea to add to the flowchart, will do. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a real improvement for most people over the more detailed flow chart we have now. The big thing that jumps out to me is a lack of BLP mention, including when to BLPPROD. I am also a bit wary of embedding specific tools into the flowchart which may cause it to become outdated more quickly than the more generalized "what to do". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this feedback. BLPPROD is mentioned under the draftify bubble, bullet #2, so should be all set there. It is quite rare so I don't think it needs its own bubble or anything. Adding more BLP stuff to the flowchart is controversial and some folks might object, for example, User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 19#NPP flowchart (ICPH's response to bullet #7). Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about that bubble more carefully, I think putting Draftify before notability encourages, even more than we do already, editors to draftify rather than nominate for deletion. I don't think that would be well received by the broader community. And I would suggest BLPPROD is more at home in the "CSD" tab than the Draftify tab - like many CSD BLPPROD makes no notability assessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to take the "borderline notability" bullet out of the reasons to draftify. While that bullet was meant to cover valid cases such as WP:TOOSOON (films, events) or promising articles where the NPP can't find enough sources but maybe the article author could if given a chance to add them, I don't want to risk it being interpreted as "draftify everything instead of using AFD".
With that bullet gone, all of the reasons to draftify are now non-notability related, so I think it probably makes sense to keep it before notability. Hopefully that solves some of the concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wow. Amazing how many sections there are. Thanks a lot.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR is an alternative to draftification or AFD that can be considered in more cases than are listed there. I think that a flowchart for only mandatory steps, not optional ones, would be more helpful. (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Changed create an AFD to create an AFD or WP:BLAR –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work and so much easier to follow through now, Thanks Josey WalesParley 18:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flochart is a great help. Thanks. RPSkokie (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some nice work! It's always good to have as many ways of presenting the workflow as possible, as different approaches work best for different people. This version addresses some comments that have come my way over the years from people that didn't like my flowchart. I think for me I still like the traditional flowchart design as it lets me ignore certain criteria when I go down a certain flow line, but I'm glad that this exists! Well done. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One question though. Why copyvio before CSD? A lot of CSD criteria are instant delete (even if most of them rarely come up nowadays after ACTRIAL), which is why I put them first in my version, since a hate page or contextless page (for example) negates the reason for a copyvios check. I don't think it really matters, as most of these CSD criteria are a lot less common than it was in the old days when I first wrote the flowchart, and when they do come up people will just skip straight to CSD anyway. Just wondering what the rationale was, since you mentioned it specifically in your first post? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPP school teachers needed
Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for WP:NPPSCHOOL? It appears all the folks listed on the NPP school page have no slots available or are inactive. I heard a story today of someone who wanted to do NPP school not being able to find a teacher. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d love to, in the future once I have more experience with patrolling new pages. I agree that any new teachers would be great! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might be able to assist here (I was 62 this year and the time I can spend staring at a screen reviewing is much less nowadays if I want to preserve my eyesight for the next 62! - but assisting someone along the way would keep me right up to date as well as hopefully adding new enthusiastic reviewers to our roster) Best wishes Josey WalesParley 18:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I going mad or did the 'Notability' tab disappear from the Page Curation Toolbar? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did. It should be fixed in 24 hours. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. That's a relief! However, I still retain the right to question my sanity on an ongoing basis. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a right. It's a duty. :-) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I felt like I was going nuts when trying to add a music notability tag the other day. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right? All 'I could have sworn I left that little thing around here somewhere'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As part of their work on PageTriage, the WMF's Moderator Tools team has been hard at work upgrading the code that powers PageTriage. This week they upgraded the code that powers Special:NewPagesFeed. We've decided to do a beta test before we swap in the new code. Please consider helping us out by using this special link instead of Special:NewPagesFeed. The special link will allow you to access the beta test. Please post here about any bugs that you find, visual changes that you don't like, or any other feedback. Thank you very much for assisting with this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been added to the "New page reviewers" user group (earlier today). However, when I click "Review" from the New Pages Feed, the Curation toolbar does not appear. I have looked through the tutorial information and tried searching previous talk page messages but didn't see anything about this (though ADHD makes it difficult to sift through large amounts of information sometimes). Is the missing toolbar an error that needs to be resolved, or is it due to my new status (and thus, will resolve itself)? Significa liberdade (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried re-opening the page curation, sometimes it gets turned off in error by users - see pic To explain to someone how to re-open page curation on en-wiki - hope that helps you and congratulations on joing the crew! Josey WalesParley 22:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. I don't have that link listed on there on my tools. After changing some scripts, I added it to the top toolbar next to Sandbox. I've opened and closed the page, refreshed my cache, updated my browser, tried a different browser... all to no avail. Thanks for the help! Significa liberdade (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Want to be new page reviewer. So what should I do earn it? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it boils down to a proven understanding of WP:N, which is best demonstrated by experience in WP:AFD and/or WP:AFC. WP:NPPSCHOOL is also a good option. When you are ready, you can apply at WP:PERM/NPP. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPP school
Hello everyone, I was wondering how long it takes to be part of the new page reviewer school? I was given an invitation on Saturday morning and I had a read of the tutorial, it is quite a long read but I got the gist of what the role entails. It suggested to go to the NPP school and I'm thinking attending, I meet the guidelines for this and I am keen to give it a go. Thanks, SarahTHunter (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the apparent lack of available teachers I opted to request the right after spending a few days reviewing the tutorial. I'm not convinced it will be granted, but if the school opens up again I'd be willing to attend. ~TPW 16:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Joseywales1961 and Zippybonzo. You expressed interest in being NPP school teachers. Are you available to help out the two folks in this section? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Novem Linguae, I would be available, if you could set me up with the more info mentioned above, my time zone is Irish Summer Time (UTC+1), I'm usually at work 8:30 to mid afternoon on weekdays and have 2 demanding springer spaniels to walk when I get home so later evening 8-11 my time is best time to get me. Best wishes Josey WalesParley 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be, I just need a bit of time to setup the course. @Novem Linguae, and I'm happy to take both of them if needed. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest Josey take SarahTHunter and Zippy take TruePaganWarrior? One each seems like a good way to do it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time zone is eastern. I do have discord, and nearly deleted it today out of disuse! I'll try to remember how to find the details for you to contact me that way. ~TPW 13:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@True Pagan Warrior: We often encourage newer members of the team to hop on the NPP Discord and ask questions while reviewing. Please do feel free to join us and ask questions there as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely sort that, since I expect that if I'm approved that this will become the bulk of my editing. ~TPW 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Sarah is set to go with me from Saturday - Best wishes to both students and Zippy as a fellow new tutor! and thanks Novum for getting all talking to each other Josey WalesParley 15:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a couple of questions regarding NPP and how it operates (disclaimer: I very recently got the right temporarily, so I'm brand new to it). First, does NPP include AfC? Or is it completely separate? I was exclusively looking at that section thinking that it counts (I've been slightly active there since I got the patroller right), but I wanted some confirmation on it.
Second, Are NPP users able to review their own articles? Or is it exclusively for users who have Autopatrolled rights? As I'm writing this message, I have nine pages in NPP so I thought it would be a good idea to clear them from the backlog. If not, would any patrollers be willing to review my articles? Please let me know.
Again, I'm completely new to the process so just giving a heads up. I'll ask more questions as needed. Thanks in advance for a response. Losipov (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPP is separate from AfC. At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened.
No, you should not review your own articles unless you are autopatrolled. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At one point there was discussion about auto- granting AfC rights to all permanent NPP holders but I don't know if this ever happened. This happened. I wrote the code for it :) So any NPP can now go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> tick Just Another Articles for Creation Helper Script -> Save, then use that to review AFC drafts. It's a different reviewing tool and a different log entry than NPP, although the criteria are similar.
The Page Curation toolbar won't show up for your own articles, unless you're autopatrolled. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question. Does Andrew Lucky Elerewe passes our GNG criteria. I tagged this for notability; but the author removed it and added some more sources. But still I don't see any reasonable sources for a GNG pass. I'm under one month trial on NPP. Before going for another AFD nomination, I considered getting a second opinion on this. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked properly at all, but at a glance I did wonder if could pass on WP:NACADEMIC#3, but I'm not convinced, as Institute of Project Managers and Institute of Management Consultants aren't "scholarly" in my mind. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not convinced. The guideline says highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association . Thilsebatti (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I actually had another question. I was looking at the page List of UK Singles Chart year-end top 100 singles of 2022, which is orphaned and unreferenced, and was considering moving it to the draftspace. However, I don't see the common text that says to the effect of "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace". In the toolbar, would an option for it be there or do I need to manually type it out? Thanks for this and for your other reply. Losipov (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I got it now, thank you. Are there any other scripts that are helpful or convenient to use? Losipov (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general question. On newly created articles, I'm used to seeing a link at the bottom of the page that says something about whether or not the article has been reviewed. But I just came across Mike Robinson (Environmentalist) which was just moved from Draft space and I don't see that it has been reviewed and that review link isn't present. Does this happen when articles are moved from Draft space to main space? Thanks for any answer you can provide. LizRead!Talk! 00:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I personally have the Page Curation bar that pops up on new articles and it's currently showing that the page has not yet been marked as reviewed. Pages moved from draft to main space are not automatically marked as reviewed unless the move is performed by a user that has the autopatrolled rights. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another query
If I come across an article at NPP feed and make some minor edits, such as adding an infobox or tagging it to request more citations, am I required to mark the page as reviewed? RPSkokie (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not obliged to mark any page as reviewed, even if you have done some changes like those above. If in any doubt always leave it in the queue (someone with knowledge in whatever field the article is in will come along eventually Josey WalesParley 22:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I appreciate your assistance. RPSkokie (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecating PROD in NPP?
Hi everyone! For context: The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used, which was not opposed by any editors in the discussion above.
In my opinion (and experience), there really is no place for PROD in NPP. Per WP:PROD, proposing an article for deletion is only appropriate if no opposition to the deletion is expected; that‘s not really a reasonable assumption for newly created pages. If an editor just recently put in the work to create an article (or publish it to the main namespace from their drafts), it is by no means reasonable to assume that they would not object to deletion. Accordingly, the PROD deletion mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with NPP, with only rare and narrow exceptions (such as old articles that have been added to the queue again for technical reasons). The documentation should reflect this; PROD should not be part of standard NPP workflows, and only described here as an outcome for the very rare cases where it may apply. I‘d like to hear as much input as possible on this. What does everyone think? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Edit: BLPPROD is of course a different matter. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m neutral on PROD itself here, but I definitely think we should keep using BLP PROD. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, that‘s a different matter. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had PRODed a new article and had it deleted one time. I think the factor at play was that I explained my reason and the article creator didn't object to it (they thanked me). AfD is an expensive process, and we should use cheaper ones if they work. Maybe I've had an experience that few others have had. I agree BLPPROD needs to stay, and I have a question about "The new flowchart already mentions that PROD should not be used". Which one now mentions that? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That‘s not an experience I‘ve had, interesting to hear from you on that. Re the flowchart, it‘s File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, which is currently used next to the other flowcharts in the tutorial. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also had new pages deleted by prod and I don't think it should be ruled out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on the context of this occurrence? Actualcpscm (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the exact ones but there are several where I gave a quite long explanation of the relevant policies and explained that I had searched for additional sources without success and then the editor allowed the article to be deleted by prod, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is a major tool I use for patrolling bad DAB pages (though I usually work from the {{One other topic}} backlogs). If there's nowhere else in NPP it has a role, it has one there. People don't usually care about their DAB pages getting deleted in my experience. Skarmory(talk •contribs) 03:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think PROD is entirely compatible with NPP in its current state.
Consider that, when sorting the new page feed to only include articles created between 6/1 and 6/7, it shows 527 pages (as of now). Even slashing 200 arbitrarily to account for some being in the queue for technical reasons, that's still 327 pages that are ~60 days old (or less) that still need an NPPer to take action for a single week. I'd say articles within that age range, presuming they meet the PROD criteria, are good candidates for PROD rather than sending to AfD or BLARing.
While the tool is "new page reviewer", considering our backlog at any given time and the lack of experienced enough NPPers to tackle it head-on instead of focusing on what they know, we can more accurately be called "created article reviewers".
I missed the topic regarding the new flow chart (though that's on me), buuut my 2 cents would be to rephrase "don't use PROD. someone will remove it" to something like "reserve PROD for articles older than 14 days without any edits for about the same time period." Regardless of the flow chart, I think taking steps to remove mention of PROD throughout NPP documentation would be unconstructive. —Sirdog(talk) 04:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think discouraging new NPPs from using it via our documentation, but not prohibiting it, is a good strategy. Since some folks clearly still find it useful. Kind of a "soft" deprecation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advice On Previously Deleted Page, Question on Involvement in Draft
Hi there,
The article Hori7on remains unreviewed, and it showed that it was previously deleted before. However, the cite highlighter script shows that a majority of the sources used are good. I'm conflicted on how to best approach it. I was leaning towards marking it reviewed, but since I'm new to it, I thought I would ask more experienced reviewers on this.
Also, regarding AfC: I saw a draft article that seemed decent, but realized I made some edits to that page before (they were not fairly major, just things like changing the short description). Would that be improper to review that article given I made previous edits there? or is this fine?
Thanks in advance for a reply! Losipov (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CiteHighlighter just checks reliability. Make sure you check the other components of GNG too (significant coverage, secondary, independent). Green sources with the band's name in the title are likely to have sigcov, but I'd spot check anyway until you find 3. You should always check sources for GNG: don't just assume.
All 3 previous deletions are "deleted to make way for move". Nothing to worry about. Hypothetically, if the previous deletions had been AFDs instead, you could tag it {{Db-g4}} to get an admin to check it against the deleted revisions and see if it's a copy that would qualify for G4.
There's no rules about being WP:INVOLVED for AFC or NPP reviewing. Feel free to review anything you've touched.
Thanks for asking questions. Happy patrolling :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone taken a look at the Clotting factors page? At present, the whole article is a table from a textbook. However, the textbook is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. It's my gut instinct that a whole article should not be a literal copy-paste from a textbook, but I'm unsure how to handle it. Recommendations? Significa liberdade (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with using compatibly licensed material verbatim, provided that the tone and sourcing is appropriate. Tone is not exactly a concern with a table. However, I think the article should be redirected/merged to Coagulation#List_of_coagulation_factors, which contains largely the same information. Spicy (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mass creation of Koli caste-related articles and drafts
These sock accounts have been blocked, and the creations they made have also been deleted. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Could be an editathon. Are the articles in mainspace non-notable/problematic? Raja Hassan Khan Khanzada has more edits than the rest of the accounts, so could try leaving them a user talk message asking for an explanation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Novem; if the articles themselves are good or passable, this is most likely just a coordinated effort to improve coverage of a certain topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer, Novem Linguae, and Actualcpscm: I have blocked the above listed named accounts (among others) as socks of the Koli sockmaster(s) discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala who have been active for years and have created hundreds of socks. Note that many of the IPs are already range blocked from mainspace etc; hence the tactic of creating articles in draft space and then using named accounts to move them to mainspace. Will be G5ing the eligible creations. NPPers are requested to be on the lookout for more such accounts/creations. See also WP:GSCASTE and feel free to request article/creation protection as needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Thanks for your work on this, I‘ll keep an eye on this topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DreamRimmer! Blocked, G5ed and salted. Caught some more socks and their creations in the process. Cheers.Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Drive?
I'm new and don't know how often a page reviewing drive is held or under what circumstances, but it looks like it might be time for one. Everything is red across the board– 14K unreviewed redirects, and almost 8K articles, which is growing rapidly. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I encounter a new article which looks questionable as to notability, and think that it should be taken to AFD. I begin reviewing the references and developing a table listing which of the references are Independent, Significant, Reliable, and Secondary. Then I conclude that the table shows that the article does satisfy the standards for general notability (or another notability guideline that is related to GNG). My question is: What should I do with the table analyzing the sources? I started the table with the intention to use it in an AFD, but I will not be writing an AFD if the table indicates that the article passes notability. Work has been done that should not be discarded. The one option that comes to my mind is to put the table on the talk page of the article. Does anyone have another thought?
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page of article. Zero harm in posting it there and it could save others the effort later on. Something like new page analysis as the section title and state at the conclusion of the post it's being marked as reviewed. I think that makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very large articles backlog
