Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

New article created through AfC

From Wikipedia:New pages patrol#The purpose of reviewing new pages: When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again at Curation. In many cases the AfC reviewer has autopatrolled rights, so after moving articles from draft to mainspace they don't appear in the NewPagesFeed. This seems to defeat new articles getting a second check after passing AfC. --John B123 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The assumption is that if a reviewer has autopatrolled rights, they likely won't be promoting pages that need immediate checks. I'm not super concerned about trusting autopatrollers with that. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Wug. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One possible edge case to consider: say an AfC reviewer with autopatrol wants to promote an article that they think is borderline and want a reviewer to take a second look at. Can the autopatrolled editor add the page to the new pages queue without the NPR permission? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes and Barkeep49: Surely other users with AfC rights are to be trusted too? --John B123 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It's complicated. Yes, I trust AfC reviewers to not promote garbage, but the guiding principle is to meatball:LimitDamage. If a reviewer makes a mistake or misunderstands a policy, without NPP review it can be hard to catch and fix. Sending most AfC promotions through NPP gives us the chance to check that nothing is going wrong earlier in the pipeline. By contrast, editors with autopatroled tend to be prolific authors, long term editors, or administrators who tend to know policy pretty well. While these editors definitely make mistakes, my assumptions are that they (1) have been around enough to know the policies on article content and promotion, and (2) are savy enough to add tags and cats as they need to without putting that on NPRs. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I like that we have a place to involve editors doing important work but who may still need to be double checked owing to their experience level. That's AFC for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Barkeep49 and Wugapodes above. In practice, the standard for approving new AfC reviewers is lower than for new page reviewers. It's good to have a second pair of eyes from NPP check the work of these less experienced AfC reviewers. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As you go through the queue, there are AfC reviewers you come to understand that they get it. There are others who make you wonder. Literally, just today, I reviewed an article which had gone through AfC which had 5 sources... 4 were press releases and the 5th was from a site associated with the person. There are AfC reviewers who I have never seen an issue with. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Has there been a fairly recent change around this? I've always understood that after an AfC accept there would be further work done by patrollers. If that is not the case then it puts the onus on the AfC reviewer to either categorise and cleanup or at least tag. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

From a quick look at some recent accepts it looks like if the AfC reviewer has "autopatrolled" or "New page reviewers" the article is marked as reviewed. Those of us with "New page reviewers" or admins can and do sometimes mark pages as unreviewed, "Add to the New Pages Feed" if we want to get a second set of eyes on, but I'm not sure if a reviewer only has autopatrolled they can? Also I don't think all reviewers that have these perms know that they need to either fully review or put in the New Pages Feed so AfC reviewers definitely need to be made aware if they have either of these perms it's their responsibility to either fully review and tag or put in the feed. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Update: needed less haste, turns out people with just "New page reviewers" and no "autopatrolled" do add it to the New Pages Feed needing review, so it is only those with just "autopatrolled" that are the issue. KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I do that fairly often, actually (un-patrol a draft I've accepted), if I feel it's a borderline case that could use a second set of eyes. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I too have done that. But it is correct that that if an afc reviewer only has autopatrolled they cannot. Would there be any interest in creating a second opinion page whether they have accepted or declined but think it's marginal? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, is there an easy way to get the numbers on users with Autopatrolled who also do AfC reviewing? I'd have thought that most people who fall into both camps could also be trusted with NPP - could we just give them the NPP flag and draw their attention to the issue, advising them to either do a full review or to mark as unreviewed if they have any doubts? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, great idea. With some help from AntiCompositeNumber I have a list of people who meet that criteria. I will explore over the next couple of days their suitability for giving them NPR which I expect to be a yes in most cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, cool. Maybe we'll recruit some new NPP reviewers as a side effect :). Let me know if I can help with the contacting etc. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I got about half way through the query last night and found 5 people who had been active recently with AfC and who had autopatrol. I hope to finish going through in the next day or so. We can then see if it results in anything or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Pages keeping their patrolled status if created from an autopatrolled leftover redirect which has been tagged for deletion

Is it possible to prevent this from happening:

• You draftify a page and tag the redirect for deletion. Tagging a redirect for deletion makes it an article and not a redirect anymore. If you're autopatrolled, that page is marked as patrolled.
• The user overwrites the leftover redirect with their article. The system does not notice that there's a new article there and the page just keeps its patrolled status.

I was not aware this could happen, but this appears to have occurred with the page Tariq Mahmud Naim, it even shows up on Google. It doesn't appear to be possible to un-patrol your own creations.

– Thjarkur (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

​ I've had a similar problem in the past, but using the MoveToDraft script adds the page to my watchlist so it appears there if somebody changes the redirect to an article. On redirects that are created from a move by a non-autopatrolled editor and subsequently marked as patrolled, if the redirect is changed to an article the patrolled flag is unset. Could this feature be extended to redirects created by autopatrolled editors? Alternatively, pagemover rights could be given to autopatrolled NPP editors so articles could be moved with leaving a redirect. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

May articles

Great to see the number of articles waiting for patrol coming down so fast, but we still have some tough articles that have been sitting at the back of the queue since May. More eyes there would be very helpful. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, Hi. I started at the back of the queue, and have been through all the articles in March, April and May, and am now going through June's. The ones left are those I'd like other editors to take a look at. Will take a look at them again in a week or so.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes I keep going back and looking at the same ones to try and make sense of them. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Same here. --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Similar to Township Units of China

Could an uninvolved editor take a look at the discussion Talk:Townships of China#Proposed merge of Similar to Township Units of China into Townships of China, and close it if you feel warranted? Thanks. Ping me if you do, and I'll take care of the merge. I'm tired of seeing this article in the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Now closed, thanks for mentioning. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Prepend" and "And, "

Hallo, Could we please revisit the wording of some of the standard messages left on user talk pages through the page curation system?

See User talk:Citrivescence/Archive 2#I have sent you a note about a page you started 3 and User talk:ნიკოლოზ_ზივზივაძე#Ways to improve Nabakevi Church for a couple of recent examples. Both include an invitation to leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|editorname}}" . Both have the wording "And, don't forget to sign your reply ...".

I suggest that the word "prepend" is beyond the vocabulary of most editors: could we just say "leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|editorname}}"? Even "prefix" would be less obscure. The fact that "prepend" includes "end" probably makes it even more confusing for people who don't know the word.

I was taught in primary school not to start a sentence with "And". Could we just say "Please remember to sign your reply..."? PamD 07:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PamD. Especially with the number of editors for whom English is not their first language.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree - Sounds like sensible changes. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

In full agreement --John B123 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As everyone above is in agreement, I went ahead and revised Template:Sentnote-NPF with the wording PamD suggested. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Lord Bolingbroke:. Is this template also used in the "Ways to improve" message? PamD 04:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: No, that would be Template:Taggednote-NPF. I've updated that template as well. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio links/script?

Hi, very new reviewer here. Is there a quick way to run pages through Earwig's tool? I've just been opening the page on Toolforge each time I want to check something, which works OK but is a bit clunky. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, try User:DannyS712/copyvio-check _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Thanks much :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

re-added to NPP

I've re-added White Lady (cocktail) to the page patrol list for a second opinion. I believe a merge and restoration of the former 13 year old redirect is necessary, a user has identified a different page as the target (and has got a little arsey over it) so I request a second opinion. Polyamorph (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree its not notable enough for its own article. Merge and redirect to Sidecar (cocktail) is probably marginally more accurate than to Sour (cocktail). Regards --John B123 (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Eh - could work either way, frankly; that's probably enough material for a separate article, but it certainly doesn't require one. Note that Sour (cocktail) has been left without even a link to White Lady (cocktail), which is somewhat contra-productive when splitting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to make that point but the user opposing the merge insists it doesn't belong there. Polyamorph (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Churches in Abkhazia

Two editors, Nina1009 and ნიკოლოზ ზივზივაძე, appear to be bulk-creating articles on churches (and other buildings) in Abkhazia. Most of these are stubs with only one reference, http://maps.nekeri.net/ , which is only enough to prove their existence and does not demonstrate notability?.

Should these be bulk-draftified? Can they be merged to a "Churches in Abkhazia" article? And with two editors, is there a coordinated effort to create these articles? If so, can it be informed about WP:Notability guidelines? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and posted about it at WP:WikiProject Georgia (country). Quite a few of these are probably notable but it will be difficult for people who do not speak Georgian to find sources. Spicy (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The ones I came across I draftified, as there is an indication that the government has named them cultural sites. A whole bunch of them have been prodded, which could be contested (at least on some of them), since there is a stated indication of notability (the cultural designation). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've draftified quite a few of them and also left a note on Nina1009's talk page explaining that all articles need to be referenced, but that seems to be ignored. The links to http://maps.nekeri.net/ are being included as an external link rather than a reference. --John B123 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I came across a lot of these while stub-sorting earlier today. The single link seems to be not just to a map but a map of historic sites with accompanying text; the text of the articles is pretty much a rewording of the text on the map page. It looks as if they are recognised as national cultural monuments, like UK listed buildings or US NRHP, which would imply notability I think. They have articles in Georgian wiki. They need coordinates and further references. The creating editors seem to be adding good accurate categories to the articles.PamD 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The situation is further complicated by the maps being drawn up by the Ministry of Education and Culture of Abkhazia. Most countries do not recognise Abkhazia as a separate state and consider it part of Georgia. Edit to add there are 173 properties on the map. --John B123 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If they are recognized historical sites (and pretty much every pre-1990 church building there is recognized as a historical site) they are notable. There is indeed an issue of Abkhazia being an unrecognized state, however, I suspect that all these buildings were recognized as monuments still in the Soviet Union and taken over by Abkhazia. Even if this is not the case, it should not matter, Abkhazia is bigger than many recognized states, and if they protect the monuments, I do not see anything wrong with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I found this 2015 document, Cultural Heritage in Abkhazia, published by the "Ministry Of Education And Culture Of The Autonomous Republic Of Abkhazia" (Autonomous Republic Of Abkhazia is how the territory is recognised/named as part of Georgia). Whilst similar to the map, some of the entries are listed as "Status Of National Importance Monument", others are not. --John B123 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A number of these articles are now at AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulanurkhva Church

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chkhalta Church

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsarche Picheriste Church

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsebelda Church of Saint Andrew the First-Called

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsebelda Saint George Church

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsebelda Saint Catherine Church

--John B123 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Kabushenga

Could some other reviewers please take a look at this article stuck in the queue? It seems to be massively-sourced rubbish, a mix of promotion, attack, trivia and incoherent nonsense. Above my pay grade, particularly on a Friday evening. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think much of the content sourced to New Vision publications should go, as it not third party. Then tagged for NPOV cleanup. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I would be tempted to just redirect to New Vision Group. Even if he is notable (not clear with all the refbombing going on) I think the article qualifies for WP:TNT. I am not sure if the redirect will stick though since this seems to be the product of a prolific sock farm. Spicy (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Alternatively can put to AFD to formalise the decision so it can't be reverted without good reason. Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. TNT was my conclusion too so if I can muster the energy I’ll take a run at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Arenas under construction

Hi all, there have recently(ish) been several creations of indoor arenas that are still under construction, with little more than a sentence (i.e. Eddie891's arena is a planned 15,000 seat arena to be built in Eddie891's town). See for instance, Sala Polivalentă (Timișoara). I think it makes sense to redirect them to List_of_indoor_arenas_in_Europe#Arenas_under_construction, until there's more to say. Thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yip, unless they're is significant coverage. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with scope_creep.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! No, it does not make sense. Since we have Proposed indoor arenas and Proposed indoor arenas in the United States. Plus Wikipedia:TOOSOON refers to biographies and films, not to indoor arenas/stadiums since we have these categories. You must also interpret the rules according to the existing categories. I hope the Americans will not discriminate Romania and any other country. These are big and important projects in the country and also for Europe. They all signed contracts with the CNI (Compania Națională de Investiții), which belongs to the ministry of regional development (Romanian government). If any will not be built, but it has not happened over the past years, I will personally request deletion (not redirection). Thank you! Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile Romania has experienced an economic boom and there are a lot of projects in development, the former communist infrastructure must be rebuilt. Only in the capital Bucharest 3 stadiums have already been built and at another 1 the construction will start these months. Only this year the construction of 5 arenas started. There are notable arenas and stadiums as they serve in the first sports leagues. Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Timișoara will be European Capital of Culture in 2023, they will get both new arena and stadium. All these not only passed the councils, but also the contracts signed with CNI (Romanian government) and the feasibility studies carried out. In Timișoara, they have already vacated and cleaned the land. The minister has been present several times in town for this. Then at Brașov and Iași the prime-minister, and are the most advanced projects. It is matter of weeks/months. scope_creep All are covered by Gazeta Sporturilor and Prosport, our largest sports newspapers, by largest sports televisions such as Digi Sport, Telekom Sport and even generalist national televisions, plus by national newspapers also. So the coverage is significant, dozens of media is writing. It is a matter of goodwill. Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Category:Proposed indoor arenas argument has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#New football stadiums; to sum up, WP:GNG needs to be met for proposed stadiums to be included. --John B123 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, from where to know? I didn't know since the category was not deleted. Normally I really hope the arenas/stadiums under construction are allowed, right? Because it's obvious they are normally completed. Two users made a mistake deleting two pages of arenas under construction. Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally stadiums are notable if a notable team have played there. Obviously this can't be the case if the stadium is proposed or under construction, so these stadiums need to be notable under WP:GNG, specifically a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These sources need to be included on the page. It is up to the article editors to demonstrate notability by including appropriate inline citations, not for others to search to see if the subject is notable. --John B123 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT

It's my understanding that meeting WP:NSPORT's SNGs is sufficient to meet notability requirements. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 7 that is suggesting both the SNG and WP:GNG are required to be met. I don't know about everybody else, but I rely a lot on SNGs when reviewing articles. Anybody any thoughts on this? --John B123 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory, SNGs are strong indicators that GNG can be met with sources that may not be present, and thus are a (strong) signal that should be taken into account together with the quality of available sourcing and other circumstances that may affect the likelihood of the subject being notable. In practice, there's enough football-focused editors that will come out to defend any article that meets NFOOTY at AfD, no matter how many other signs point against notability. It's not worth fighting against them IMO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think SNG's provide a stronger level of notability, than the general notability criteria. A lot of people assume that if it can't meet the SNG but can meet CNG with some woolly references, then its ok and its enough to satisfy to meet notability. I think GNG were great 10 years, but almost all editors can scrape up something to satisfy it, resulting in reams of articles that pass Afd now but would have be deleted in the past. NFooty articles are just one part of that. I would like to get a big group of editors together to individually review all of them, establish a baseline and then start the process of getting rid of the ones, below the line. scope_creep^Talk 23:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it's the yin and the yang. On Footy articles, I see a lot more "passes WP:NFOOTY", with a single ref pointing to a team page in some journal showing the person played 3 minutes in a game, than I do articles that have a bunch of what I would call routine sports coverage. But I see a ton of articles now being kept at AfD (or deprodded), simply because a player gets a lot of local coverage, but they don't pass WP:COLLATH. I agree with Rosguill that the theory behind SNG's is that if they pass that, then in all likelihood they will also pass GNG. But like John B123 I rely a lot on the SNG's when reviewing. That said, I won't review articles about college players anymore, simply don't need the hassle. Only one of two areas I won't touch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

NPP is an administrative task. As far as NPP is concerned, we mark as reviewed if the article meets any one SNG or the GNG (and also articles that usually survive AFD despite (apparently) meeting neither, with a notability tag, IMO).

Tackling it as a general question, some SNGs are stronger than GNG and on some areas, GNG is stronger than SNGs. Many deletionist editors argue without any other consideration that an article should be deleted because it fails GNG, which is just as wrong as those who argue an article on someone who's not done anything worthy be kept just because they meet a weak SNG. Finally, GNG is also a presumption of notability. A person could meet GNG without doing anything encyclopedically notable. Because of the prevailing misunderstanding regarding what notability is, discussions almost always favour GNG over SNGs even when it's the SNG that's stronger for the given case. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks All for your input. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference:

• WP:NOTE: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right'
• WP:NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below
• WP:SNG: A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article

--John B123 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Journal articles

Hi. In reviewing the back of the queue, I came across a bunch of journal articles on June 29, like International Journal of Digital Earth, Journal of Spatial Science, and Geocarto International. I think this is fitting in light of the SNG/GNG directly above. As per WP:JOURNALCRIT, #1, "For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies". Now, the word, "usually" sticks out to me. So, to me, when a journal has an extremely low impact factor (in my mind, it's less than 10), that factor alone does not make the journal qualify. Therefore, other factors need to exist to make it pass notability criteria. Most of these articles have only 1 or 2 citations, either primary sourcing, or a simple listing. I draftified two of them, since they both meet all 3 of the first criteria in draftify, but the article creator is a little bent out of shape by my actions, see Draft talk:Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society. Could use some input from other reviewers on this. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, Draft: space is optional, so that makes draftification a suggestion only, which means no matter how many of us agree that draftification is the right choice, it still doesn't make it an enforceable consensus. I mean, we have debates going on right now at AN as well as an RFC to try and make AFC mandatory for known paid editors and even that seems not to be going the way that (most?) NPP and AFC reviewers would like. So, my recommendation is that you either move it back to mainspace and put it through AFD or advise them that they are free to move it back to mainspace with or without improvements if they disagree with the draftification, but that it runs the risk of being AFDed by another reviewer, and move on. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, there was recently an RFC that closed as consensus against draftifying articles that are not new (haven't read the whole thing)[1]. I don't know whether June 29 counts as old or new, but I remember reading somewhere once that one such article encountered in the NPP queue was considered too old for the purpose by at least one editor. So, that may be worth keeping in mind too. Frankly, the community seems to have a strong block(?) that despise the draft: namespace altogether and many seem to view any draftification as a backdoor to deletion rather than a valid ATD. So, I've more or less sworn off draftifying except for the really really obvious cases. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was against draftifying articles that weren’t ‘new’ but there was no solid discussion of what ‘new’ meant. The specific issue as I remember was that some editors were sending articles to draft that were years old in mainspace, and that’s what the discussion was about. I think anything in the NPP queue is ‘new’ even if it’s (cough) four and a half months old. I also think we should not be draftifying established articles that are redirected and then have the redirect undone so they reappear in the queue. That’s what I took the outcome to mean anyway. Mccapra (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe I participated in that RfC and the vibe I got was the same: if it's in the NPP queue it's probably fine to draftify. If it's years old, take it to AFD. Edge cases of 6months to a year will be judgment calls: if you think the original author is still around to fix problems, draft is a good option, but if it will just languish in draft space with no maintainer then it's better to get it deleted at AFD. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue with those articles is that they are stubs, not that they aren't notable and don't belong in mainspace. See also User_talk:Fgnievinski/Archive_2#Journal stubs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I can only imagine how much damage Onel5969's misinterpreation might have caused already. Their patrolling rights should probably be suspended until someone revises their moves into draft, undoing and nominating articles for deleting as necessary. No kidding WP:DRAFTIFY warns that "It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." fgnievinski (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And with regard to "extremely low impact factor (in my mind, it's less than 10)", if they knew anything about IF, they should have considered IF in light of journals in the same discipline, otherwise they'll draftify all mathematics journals, for example. He or she is so clueless that the highest impact factor in the Category: Remote sensing journals was moved into Draft:Remote Sensing of Environment. fgnievinski (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That said, you really should follow WP:JWG, rather than aim for the bare minumum for a stub. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, although I find stubs better than no article, when it comes to notable subjects. fgnievinski (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, people who do the work, and make the hard calls that others won't, sometimes make mistakes. They could have saved themself the effort by undoing the move and moving on instead of getting into the point-by-point analysis for the sake of WP:ADMINACCT, but the draftification itself was perfectly justified. And they came here for a second opinion as soon as they needed it. So, unless you think you're perfect, I'd apologise to Onel5969 and resolve to make a better case for notability in articles to come. The only reason you are here gloating is because Headbomb happened to be here to tell us that, yes, despite appearances, the topic is actually notable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Strange, I thought I had put a reminder to WP:AGF to Fgnievinski, but that edit seems to not have gotten saved. I'll echo Usedtobecool's remarks here. There is no need for the "He or she is so clueless" sort of language. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the "clueless" word. But take a look at Draft talk:Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society and you'll notice how hard I tried to engage constructively. Now that you mentioned WP:ADMINACCT, with all due respect, I still find he or she exercised poor judgment, I'm just not sure if it's a case of "repeated or consistent poor judgment." NPP should be mindful of trigger-happy patrolling. fgnievinski (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski, you asked them to move it back and AFD, at 15:15; they posted here asking for advice at 15:36. What exactly is your concern? I too believe that stubs are better than no articles. And you can't write all stubs directly stating why the subject is notable. But then, you have to expect that a reviewer may not be able to see the notability of the topic, and you might have to defend your article. What exactly do you find in poor judgement here? Your article had stayed in the queue for more than three months without any reviewer knowing what to do with them. (You were wrong about NPOSSIBLE by the way.) Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. A lot to unpack here. Been away from WP for most of the day. Thanks to all who responded. Usedtobecool, thanks for your input. Yes, I know that draftifying is not a consensus issue. What I was looking for was more of a gist of what others opinions were of Criteria 1 in the WP:JOURNALCRIT SN. And regarding age, my understanding is similar to that of Mccapra, that draftifying "old" articles meant articles that had never been reviewed. In the NPP queue, daily there are dozens of articles which appear at the old end of the queue which for one reason or another have had changes made to them, which put them in the queue (e.g., an established article gets turned into a redirect, and then the redirect is reverted). Articles like that should never be draftified, unless agreement is reached between editors, that one wants to work on establishing an article out of a long-established redirect. And Headbomb, first, thanks for moving the article back into mainspace, which I would have done once I came back on WP, and checked here for advice on the criteria #3 issue. Second, my issue with the articles is not that they are stubs (Lord knows, I've created my fair share of stubs), but that they are poorly referenced stubs. Take for example Journal of Spatial Science, which has a single citation. The rationale used in the discussion I referenced on the article I draftified, was that it had an impact factor. However, that citation does not appear to back that statement up. Therefore, the main rationale for notability is uncited. The same with the other two articles I listed above. The only citation doesn't back up the main criteria for notability, and is from a non-independent source. That is where I have issue. The same is true of International Journal of Digital Earth, which I redirected to the publishing house, but was reverted. Even though that isn't keeping with WP:BURDEN. Even the article I draftified had zero non-primary sources at the time I draftified it. I feel that if you have an assertion in an article, it should be sourced, especially when that assertion is the focal point of notability. Regardless, thanks for the input.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry come into this late, personal commitments have meant I haven't been online. WP:BURDEN is clear that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If this is not complied with we can tag the article suitably but if nothing changes after that then policy/guidelines such as WP:NPOSSIBLE make it difficult to enforce WP:BURDEN. Headbomb's message on the creator's talk page in July didn't result in any improvement in the articles and the creator continued to create articles with the same problems. My tagging in September hasn't resulted in improvements either. Sending the article to draft resulted in the creator adding further references, so from the point of view of notability being verified on the page, draftifying was, to a degree successful.

I think the main issue here should be what can be done to make sure the creator of these articles complies with WP:BURDEN, not whether this article should have been draftified or not. --John B123 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I've noticed these too. Particularly irritating is that they don't have ISSNs listed, so it's annoying to check this tool to see where they're indexed. They're all published by Taylor & Francis—does that make a difference? (Fwiw, the creator was just granted autopatrolled rights.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, not a good result over at autopatrol... especially in light of this conversation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm appalled so many best practices of WP:DRAFTIFY keep getting ignored, such as:

• "(Old pages, and pages by experienced editors, deserve an AfD discussion)."
• "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable, list at AfD."

I've requested exactly that in Draft talk:Remote_Sensing_and_Photogrammetry_Society:

• "Feel free to nominate this article for deletion after you restore it to mainspace."

The request was denied until someone else came in to rescue the article from this NPP nightmare. fgnievinski (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yet another abuse of NPP: Draft_talk:Indian_Society_of_Remote_Sensing. fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As the alleged abuser, I can say I moved the above article to draft because it looked like a viable article topic but lacked sufficient sources. I draftified it so that sources can be added and it can come back into mainspace. NPP guidelines do not direct patrollers to either mark an article as reviewed or send it to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Another paid cleanup

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Paid_editor_blocked_with_30,000_edits. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Urgh Mccapra (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is another reason why we need to be more selective in awarding reviewer rights for AFC and NPP in my view. Doubling the quaulification period would be a start as it would give more time to spot promotional editing and undisclosed paid editors, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  IMO we should get rid of autopatrol. I'm not convinced that it saves us any time as a project. The time it takes to vet editors outweighs the amount of time saved reviewing their articles. Articles that are high enough quality to not need a review are easy to review quickly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  An editor literally being paid to circumvent our systems will take the time to circumvent our systems. I'm not opposed to doubling the time period - I often look for more than that amount of experience when evaluating a candidate anyway - but let's be clear that as we've made it harder to spam the most successful UPE will do so in ways that make it harder for us to catch. Also a big oppose to getting rid of autopatrol. I disagree on the time/benefit equation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I feel like reviewing an autopatrol request means thoroughly reviewing 10-20+ articles (that have already been reviewed once), plus checking logs, etc. A prolific editor might write 10 articles a year, meaning that we only start saving time if they stick around for more than 2 years while keeping up the editing pace. Add to that the potential for abuse, and that declining the permission can cause drama and discourage potentially good-faith editors and I think it's more trouble than it's worth. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think you really underestimate how many articles a prolific writer creates in a year. Now most of them already have autopatrol so they're not going to need to request the perm again. Now if we want to say that only third party requests or only people with the NPR perm can nominate someone for autopatrol (which would obviously encompass all sysops) will be considered why that's pretty interesting. And would certainly throw up a roadblock to UPE getting the PERM. But by my count we had 407 autopatrol created articles today ([2]) and I'm a fan of not having had that many need patrolling when we're only getting the queue under control because Onel has returned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, hm, the diminishing returns you've identified (most of them already have autopatrol) does make this harder to assess. I feel like I've personally rarely looked at an autopatrol request that's been made by an editor creating more than an article a month for any significant period of time, but it makes sense that there's plenty of old hands making good use of the perm. I like the 3rd-party nomination only idea, that should make it much harder for UPE, reduce the number of good-faith editors who want it for hat-collecting reasons (and who will be discouraged from editing when an admin says no), while still letting us exempt anyone who genuinely is creating tons of good articles that don't require review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think someone already stated this elsewhere, but I think the best course of action moving forward would be to make it quite tough for a relatively new editor to possess Autopatrolled, NPP & AFC reviewer right all at the same time.

@Rosguill, I think an alternative to getting rid of Autopatrolled is for the community to create a policy that makes it mandatory that any editor who has been nabbed off wiki advertising their services on social media be stripped off of Autopatrolled rights permanently. Furthermore i think it should be made mandatory for any editor possessing both NPP & AFC to manually unreview any article they have accepted via WP:AFC so a different pair of eyes would evaluate the article & do the reviewing. As one who has lived in Nigeria for 20+ years now, I can tell you for a fact that more shocking revelations would be made in due time. It’s only a matter of time. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, I was under the impression that this is effectively already what we do in practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yes, technically speaking it is what we do, but what I was suggesting was a permanent ban, that is, the guilty party may never hold the Autopatrolled rights again or at least for a 12 month period. I agree with you though, Autopatrolled is beginning to do us all a disservice, the cons are exponentially outweighing the merits. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting permissions back after a breach of confidence like this, I'm not sure I've even heard of anyone getting unblocked in such a situation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, What I’m referring to are editors with Autopatrolled rights nabbed off wiki advertising their Wikipedia services but not directly indicted in UPE with substantial evidence such as this Lapablo incident. My point is the sheer act alone of an editor with Autopatrolled rights advertising their Wikipedia services should indicate dishonesty & a breach of trust & thus their Autopatrolled rights stripped indefinitely. You are correct, I don’t think I have seen an editor nabbed with solid evidence that they engage in UPE get their Autopatrolled rights back. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rare that I comment since deciding to call it a day on Wikipedia, but as the project grows organically now is certainly the time to review, once again, some now archaic aspects of it. One of those is Autopatrolled. This artice I wrote in The Signpost just over two years ago on NPP, (essential reading for anyone new to the game) touches on just that and the way User:KDS4444 whom I fortunately ran to ground, blatently exploited all the rights he could obtain, including OTRS, for the sole purpose of pursuing a lucrative career in UPE. The only right he didn't acquire was the Admin bit. NPP is now peppered with dubious rights holders and not only should its access be tightened up, but it's time to investigate if it is worth hanging on to Autopatrolled. Let's not forget that exposing a case of misuse of Autopatroled (by an admin, no less, and confirmed paid editor!) was what ironically partly led to me being desysoped. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• My take on autopatrol is that it dramatically increased the quality of the articles I created. Knowing that nobody was double checking them, I went from writing stubs of iffy notability if I'm honest (i.e. inductess into women's HOFs and Medal of Honor recipients that only get a paragraph) that tbh might be better off merged somewhere, to only writing clearly notable articles and developing them close to fully before mainspacing. Knowing that there isn't a second set of eyes on my articles made me be much more careful to ensure they wouldn't need a second set of eyes. Compare one of my last articles created before autopatrol to the articles that I have created since. Sure, they aren't perfect, but I've noticed a general increase in my quality since AP was granted. I don't think there's much of a benefit to removing autopatrol, but maybe we shouldn't have a requests page and instead admins can give it out to users they notice deserve it as many already do? -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, that’s definitely an effect Autopatrol has; a sense of “with great privilege comes great responsibility” absolutely true, but if Autopatrol is to be grandfathered, users such as the one just currently blocked for UPE could easily fool any admin by gaming that particular kind of system by creating decent articles only to switch to subtle covert UPE once they are grandfathered. I agree with you, removal of Autopatrol isn’t the answer but I don’t believe being grandfathered is as well. I was going to say something like “let us setup a task force that reviews articles created by editors with Autopatrol rights” but then again it defeats the very existential nature of Autopatrol. A thank you to some admins, @DGG, (comes to mind) who review the article's created by editors with Autopatrol every now & again. I suggest meticulous scrutiny for editors requesting the right to be the best course of action moving forward & at the slightest tale sign of UPE, the perm be removed indefinitely. Celestina007 (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

“with great privilege comes great responsibility” - perhaps. Indeed, like DGG I used to regularly review the creations by Autopatrolled users, and as I said above, you can all see where it got me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Suddhasatwa Basu

New reviewer here: should I pass this? It looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, is not a copyvio, and has already been been tagged with all the relevant tags. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out whether reviewing entails "it is an acceptable article" or just "it would not be deleted" speedily or at AfD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yip, eminently notable, but it needs a copyedit, which can be done in mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at [3]. He has 12 papers with more than 100 citations which is a clear indication he is notable. Here is a paragraph: User talk:David Eppstein#Pamela_Jumper-Thurman. This is worth reading as details how recognise an academic who is perhaps not a STEM position, but may still be notable, and what to look when trying to determine what to do. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, Just marked as reviewed. Needs a lot of cleanup, but I take it from your comments that reviewing an article on a notable subject while leaving tags is acceptable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yip, I think so. I don't think we can do everything. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Scope creep, interesting, I use David Eppstein as my benchmark on WP:NSCHOLAR, as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannes F. Wagner, where I withdrew my AfD based solely on his input. I would caution that the 100 cites on 4 articles is dependent on the field the scholar is in. Several times I've come across articles where they don't have a single article cited more than 80 or so times, but due to the field of study, that was found to be significant. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I am in a similar situation. I use David Eppstein if I can't make a determination, which more than few times a week. Generally I will just leave it and let somebody else look at it. Yip, Yip, if its not STEM, it sometimes very very hard to make a judgement, particularly if it is in a field you don't know anything about. Experience counts. It worth looking at h-index, if they are members of certain societies, if they are members, fellows, presidents of particular societies, or if they are an editor of a prestigious book series, or if they have written an industry bible. But that is all small part of what counts. This is a classic case. This chap S. S. Agarwal has been a former president of the Indian Medical Association. Folk mostly don't realise what that means. Joseph Lister was president of the British Medical Association, so S. S. Agarwal is of a similar calibre, a super-heavyweight academic/physician type. So it really worth examining the article. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he's notable . The effective criterion for notability by showing influence by citations, as shown by the most recent AfDs, is: in the biomedical sciences, at least two peer-reviewed papers with over 100 citations each, but better with 200. In other fields of biological science, 1 or more with over 100. In other fields of science it's lower, but there is no agreement of how much lower. In the experimental social sciences at least 1 over 100, in those fields where the important publications are by book, it's the books that matter: there should be at least 2 from university presses or other major academic publishers. There are several auxiliary criteria in WP:PROF< and if any are present there's no need to bother with citations. But AFC is a screening device only: an article which is reasonably likely to pass AfD should be accepted. So at AfC, the relevant criteria is lower, but it is difficult to say exactly.

My criteria and DE's differ in how we consider citations in fields of science where there is a low publication density. I will argue for anything which is above the average for the field, if the field is something like field biologyor paleontology. DE often holds out for more. His view has been accepted in some recent AfDs, mine in some others. At AfCH, anything that might might pass should be accepted.

But there are two other factors, and because of each of them, I would not have accepted this article from Draft. First, judging by the user name, this article was written by an undeclared paid editor, who was told on his user talk page to declare, and has not done so. I do not accept these articles until there has been either a declation of there being no COI or the proper declaration of COI. Material in WP contrary to the terms of use should not be accepted unless an established editor is willing to take responsibility. The most recent editor is reliable, but has made only trivial adjustments.

Second, the article is a violation of WP:NOT CV, which is basic policy. and therefore makes all considerations of notability irrelevant. This can be fixed in some cases, and fortunately, this is one of them. . CVs list minor awards, and chapters in books, and memberships on editorial boards-- encyclopedia articles do not. Please observe the material I am removing in the next edits. There is usually from paid editors a third consideration, promotionalism , but this does not seem significant here--the article is reasonably objective. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DGG: I never looked at the originating editor. A point to note and signifcant. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A little merge help, please

Hi. Could someone who is not involved, please take a look this merger discussion, it's been open for a couple of weeks, and if you feel there has been enough discussion, could you close it and ping me? I'll take care of the merge. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I kept wondering about this one as it's been sitting at the end of the new pages feed for a while. Discussion closed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

John B123, Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hardev Bahri

Can somebody give me a second opinion on Hardev Bahri. Whilst I think the subject is notable, I don't think notability is established on the page. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

John B123, This looks like a WP:NAUTHOR criterion 1 pass to me. I trust the citation to the Encyclopedia of Indian Literature, published by Sahitya Akademi, and he has 1,300+ library holdings. I couldn't find any reviews of his books, but that's not super surprising since they all appear to be reference works (and were also published long ago). I think this would survive an AfD. Perhaps folks at WP:INDIA would have additional input. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is certainly notable. As I mainly work here on Indian literature related article, I can say this without any doubt. --Gazal world (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gazal world. Thanks, my concern was not that he wasn't notable, but that notability was not being established by the references. --John B123 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok. IMO, the entry in 'Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature' is enough to claim notability. It is one of the most reliable and authentic Encyclopedias of Indian literature, published by India's national academy of letters. Sig by user:Gazal world on 9.51 on 17 October 2020. Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think he is notable. I updated the encyclopedia ref to new edition I think, which had a lot more info and said stuff like he was senior linguistics dude in India. There should be more references added to the article. Two is insufficient, particlarly since the first one is a paid service and not particualrly reliable. There is lot more available to support it. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature before, but as I know little of Indian Literature then that's not surprising. I did think that if the encyclopaedia was of sufficient status for an entry in it to be accepted as showing notability then it would have its own article. Agree it needs more references, but adding tags to the page was immediately reverted by another editor. --John B123 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. So we can add {{Ref improve}} tag, and mark the page reviewed. --Gazal world (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added ref and a ref improve tag and reviewed. Its ok as a wee small article. scope_creep^Talk

Thanks All --John B123 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes have a hard time understanding reviewers' penchant for slapping tags onto articles. Now what's the point of this {{refimprove}} here? See the template's documentation: This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. Don't use this tag for articles that contain no unreferenced material, even if all the material is supported by a single citation. What material do you see in the article that's not supported by the references? It's a short article, if there's any at all, just tag that with an individual {{citation needed}} tag, there's no need to decorate the top of the article with a big box message that only applies to a single sentence somewhere. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

John B123, onI find it surprising that you would place a notability tag on an article whose subject you thought was notable. Sorry, for quoting a template's documentation again, but see Template:Notability#When to use: Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have an article about). (emphasis in original). – Uanfala (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required to show notability (WP:GNG). The article does not show this (especially as Bahri is not listed in later editions of Who's Who Of Indian Writers [4]). What tag would you suggest should be used to indicate this non-compliance with guidelines? --John B123 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You're quoting a criterion (one criterion) for deciding if a topic is notable. Once it's been decided that it is, then that's not relevant any more. If you think the article is notable, then there's no need for a notability tag. If you place a notability tag, then it indicates you believe it's not notable. – Uanfala (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying that if you decide a subject is notable there's no need to demonstrate its notability in the article? --John B123 (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course! The requirement for articles to explicitly demonstrate notability beyond all reasonable doubt only exists, informally, at AfC – and then only as a cynical and pragmatic device to shift as much of the notability-checking work away from the reviewer. If we – you, others and me – have satisfied ourselves the topic is notable, then there's no need for formalities. Obviously, I'm proceeding on the assumption that you haven't changed your mind about Bahri's notability. If you have, then you're free to nominate it for deletion. My whole point so far was objecting to the self-contradictory use of maintenance tags. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

If a reviewer has found that there are sources that establish a subject's notability, but these have not yet been added to the article, the suitable template to use is {{Sources exist}} (that's basically the formal way of noting "I have reasons to decide that notability is met, even if the article doesn't demonstrate that yet"). A {{Notability}} tag does imply that such sources may not exist. Either is of course fine depending on circumstances, and I'm not quite clear on what your assessment is at this point, but they do indicate different assessments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, thanks for that template. Perhaps it exists and I don't know about it, but it would be nice if there were a page which listed helpful templates, especially for NPP patrollers. When the page curation tool came out, that was a huge help regarding templating, but it is nowhere near complete (another one missing is the {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}} template). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates can be useful. --John B123 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

{{Sources exist}} has actually been added to the tool , maybe a year back? It's at the top of the "Sources" category. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, my gosh. I never realized that. Thought they were in alphabetical order... duh. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect whitelist protection level

@Rosguill and DannyS712: I noticed that the applicable bot operator, DannyS712, is a template editor. Would it not make things simpler to lower the protection level to template protected? I do not think granting the small amount of editors (185) with the permission the ability to edit the list would be in any way problematic. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Godsy: The original RfC established that this pseudo-right should only be granted by admins. Removal requests from me are special in that, as the bot op, I am responsible for the bot actions and if I request that someone be removed they should be, but otherwise additions and removals are admin actions that are either done as individual discretion or as the result of discussion on the talk page, so no, I don't think the protection should be lowered DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you do not want it changed, then there is much less of a point of proposing an amendment. I do not see any problem with it personally, even if template editors filled the same role that administrators do know (had the reasons why typed out, but deleted them because it got much more "the mop is for operating the system and not a beacon of authority" than I wanted to and the coherency was faltering at this late hour). Warm regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The small text comments made my day :D – SD0001 (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Kuruluş: Osman characters

Could someone please take a look at List of Kuruluş: Osman characters? Limorina (talk · contribs) seems incapable of waiting for an experienced reviewer to promote it from draft & has done so again despite my request to wait. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Requests for source code

I tried to find the source code for page curation as It is not a webwide feature for every language. Can I have the algorithm of the source code so that I can make some uses of it in other wikis? regards — A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 06:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@ShohagS: It's mw:Extension:PageTriage. Unfortunately the extension was only designed for the English Wikipedia when it was created and it's currently almost impossible to use it on any other wiki (phab:T50552). – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 07:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Marcela Mitaynes

Obvious WP:NPOL fail now, but given that she's the Democratic nominee for a Brooklyn seat in the New York State Assembly, it seems virtually guaranteed that she will pass WP:NPOL as of November 4, 2020. To pass as reviewed or not to pass? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave it in the queue until November 4. Whilst it looks probable she'll be elected, a lot can happen before then. --John B123 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"a lot can happen before then" - which would likely make the page a WP:GNG dead-cert. :-)

In case you've missed it, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield is edging toward a rethink of some aspects of WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have put money on it ending with a consensus like that. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Need for Better Docs: What does Curation/Patrol/Review actually do?

The docs seem to describe the tools and the process fairly well, but I haven't been able to find what review/approval actually does. I think it sets a flag to allow search engines to index the page. Is that right? And as a page creator, how can you tell if the page you started has been approved? Paulgush (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paulgush: yes essentially what it does is set the page to be indexed by search engines. Reviews will show up in the log for the article (which means if it's on your watchlist you'll also get a notice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you! Paulgush (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paulgush: To see the logs for an article, go to page history and below the title is a link "View logs for this page", which will take you to the page log, which includes page reviews. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Thanks for that. Looking at the page I recently created on Gabi Le Roux, I'm confused. When I view all public logs and add Review Log and Patrol log, I only see one item, Page Created. And when I select Page Curation or Patrol Log that doesn't pull up anything either. Yet when I look at Page Information under Tools on the left hand bar, I see under Basic Information that Indexing by robots is Allowed. So, what is the current status of this page? Paulgush (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paulgush:. Nothing shows up as the page hasn't been reviewed. I've marked the page as reviewed and then unreviewed. If you look at the logs now they should show up. I think (although others with more knowledge might be able to give a more definitive answer) "Indexing by robots" refers to internal bots not external ones such as Google. For example, you can add {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to the page to exclude Citation bot.

Going back to the article, it needs a few more references to show notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing. Again.

Hi. During recent weeks I've noticed a few articles being moved into draft space with the edit summary "segregate paid editing", or something similar. Was there a discussion somewhere about this? I couldn't find anything on the wp pages regarding paid editing. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, there was this which if it had found consensus might have caused an increase in draftification of suspected paid articles, but it did not (it seems to me; hasn't been closed). But the discussion itself might have generated more interest or better education on paid page curation among our peers. Or they may be creations of Lapablo (30K edits) or TamilMirchi (50K edits) who were recently blocked for UPE. DannyS712 ({{noping}}ed) was working on mass quarantining Lapablo's articles, TamilMirchi is being discussed at COIN but it is quite a way from reaching any consensus to mass undo/recheck their work. Then there is our plain old WP:DRAFTIFY which allows for draftification of COI/PAID articles. And those are all the guesses I have. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thanks, that was the direction I was looking for. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Glad to have been of assistance. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Military History Project banner

Hi I often need to add the project banner for Military History to article talk pages. As I’m not very technical I just go to the project page each time, make a couple of clicks and then manually copy and paste the project banner onto the talk page. I wonder if anyone has a fiendishly clever shortcut I could use, like just typing a couple of characters and getting the full template without all the rigmarole? Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, how about the WP:RATER? Works from the article itself, on blank talk pages and ones with some projects already listed (with any degree of detail). The actual answer to your question though is possibly {{WPMILHIST}}. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, you are probably asking for a template with all the parameters filled in. {{WPMILHIST}} is not it, so I go back to the first suggestion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. It is something like {{WPMILHIST}} that I’m looking for, but specifically something that adds the full spectrum banner with all the options rather than just the short version. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, I don't think that exists. You can copy the code that you usually need to paste on the article's talk page as a user subpage and then subst that userpage when you need to use it. For example copy the code to User:Mccapra/Mil and then add to article talk pages {{subst:User:Mccapra/Mil}}. That should work I reckon. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Lovely thanks for the suggestion. All the best Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ben Davies (English rugby league)

Could somebody have a look at this article. I feel it is under-referenced but tagging as such is being resisted by the creator. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

John B123, done. It's funny, some editors get bent out of shape when you go in and insert the cn tags like you did, while others get bent out of shape when you simply tag the article with an overall refs needed tag, like I just did. But you're correct, definitely needs more sources. Let's see how they like that instead. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparison tool

Hi there. Occasionally I come across an article by a banned/blocked user, as I am sure we all do. Sometimes, there is another editor who has done some work, sometimes significant work, on the article. When that happens, nothing to raise any alarms, but sometimes I come across two more articles by a banned/blocked user, and the same other editor has done work on them as well. This can raise an alarm of a potential sock. Going further, sometimes those socks are real easy to spot, but sometimes, those socks have been around for a while, and they are much more difficult to spot. Right now, there were a few articles by the banned user, ShakiraS12, which were also edited by user FanDePopLatino, such as Thalía (2013 album), Thalía (2013 album), and La Luz (Thalía and Myke Towers song). Now, this could just be an occurrence of simply being a fan of the same artist, but it could be something else. I hate making work for other editors, and I also hate making work for myself, so is there a tool that can be used to compare the edit history of two editors, to see if their is some commonality? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That user has had socks with similar names, relating to Shakira, I believe? When you report suspected sockpuppets, check users do have comparison tools. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 Are you looking for this tool in anyway? [5]? - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The9Man, YES! That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

earwig copyvio detector

wasnt able to use today to check a few articles (maybe it takes longer to load?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, yes, it's known to do both: be down, as well as take a long time to load (it does all the checking while the browser shows no response from server and directly loads the results of the search, which usually takes around half a minute for me, but a lot longer on occasion). In my first attempt right now, it said that it has run out of the number of times it's allowed to query the search engine and so can only compare urls on the article with the article. That limited functionality worked fine. On second try, it gave full results; took around 15 secs to load (for a very short draft article). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, not sure if this will help, but I've noticed it helps to open earwig first and enter the page, rather than using one links to open and search. Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  14:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I use User:DannyS712/copyvio-check which is somewhat faster (sometimes). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your responses,they're all helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The detector can run out of searches with Google which will limit its ability to work on a given day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying over existing draft

Hi Meisam Yousefi needs to go back to draft since notability is not established by the sources provided. It was copied to mainspace and there’s still a draft version of the article in draft space. Can someone please point me to the directions for how to deal with this? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, request WP:HISTMERGE and then draftify it afterwards. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazing work, guys

Over the last three months or so, the backlog has been wrestled down by two thirds; most manifestly due to the efforts of Onel5969, Rosguill, and John B123. Big thanks all round, especially for not making Onel5969 slip back into the position of the sole finger plugged into the dyke! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Hello guys! I was reviewing the articles and stumbled upon a case which is new to me - so I need your help. The article AssadUllah Shah is obviously not ready for the mainspace, but the subject looks notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I wanted to move it to drafts but there's already a draft of the same article written by another user. Can you help me - what should be done in such cases? None of the CSD seems applicable... Thank you, best, Less Unless (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If the article is the same as the draft (ie a copy and paste) then I redirect the article to the draft and tag {{Db-r2}}. Where the article is different to the draft (as in this case), I move to draft with a number after the title, eg Draft:AssadUllah Shah 2. Regards --John B123 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, John B123! Less Unless (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The person was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, so he is definitely notable. You can mark it reviewed. --Gazal world (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mark it as reviewed. The only ref gives the date of election, it doesn't verify his term as an MP, his Presidency of the National Conference, being chairman of Jamia Masjid Kupwara for 11 years or his time and place of death. Notability isn't the only consideration. --John B123 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Apologise. I didn't verify the reference. As I belong to India, I know he was a MLA. --Gazal world (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So the article goes to draftspace? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a new article, so I would leave it unreviewed at present, in the hopes that the editor (or someone else) comes and gives it a citation to establish the obvious notability. Or you could shoot the editor a message and let them know that it needs citations. However, they don't seem to be very proactive. Gazal world, you say that you know this person is a MLA, can you provide a reference?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I will try few days later. Happy (Hindu) New Year. --Gazal world (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol and global rollback (2)

Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Autopatrol and global rollback. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72, pages and redirects created by global rollbackers in the main namespace will now automatically be unpatrolled (unless the user has local autopatrol or admin rights), meaning we will likely see a (probably small) rise of the number of pages in the queue. I encourage any reviewers who see global rollbackers creating redirects that can be patrolled uncontroversially to nominate them at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on Classes of British ships of World War II

So this article had me flummoxed. I was about to move it to Draft and then thought I'd ask here. List of Classes of British ships of World War II is just a first line noting intent to create and an under construction template. I'd think a sandbox or Draftspace would be the place to undertake such a major project, rather than banging it line by line into Mainspace. Would you agree - draft? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: I agree that is not the ideal way to write an article. However, as it is still being edited it shouldn't be draftified (as per WP:NPPDRAFT). Generally, I leave articles alone that are tagged {{Under construction}}, {{In creation}} or {{In use}}. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I also leave articles with those types of tags alone for a few days. After 3 days, if they are still there, and they have no recent editing activity, that's when I'll review them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alexandermcnabb: I certainly think this kind of incremental building is better done in draft, but we can't force that. As per WP:DRAFTIFY, we should not move articles to draft if they are actively being improved. In this case, the user is currently working on it and has also placed an "under construction" template. - Having said that, I yesterday moved a new article to draft because the author had left it in a completely unsourced state (and there were notability concerns), then stopped editing for eight hours. That was probably a bit quicker than is normally recommended, but complete lack of sources is one of the major sins hereabouts, and calls for a little more housekeeping zeal than other issues. However, List of Classes of British ships of World War II is a list article consisting of bluelinks only, so while sources will eventually have to appear here, verification is already possible. So I'd suggest leaving this alone and unreviewed for now; if the editor stops working on it for several days, draftification might be appropriate. Anyway, my two cents. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Too many questions from me, I know... but Macaloney's Caledonian Distillery

Okay, folks. So I nominate Macaloney's Caledonian Distillery for speedy deletion, dumping the yuletide message on the creator's talk page [6] - and then User:Deb bangs in a COI tag before User:John_B123 also nominates the thing for speedy. I thought User:Deb had nixed it, but it's still there. It strikes me we have been a bit Keystone Cops - lots of us pitching in to one page that was reviewed and then nominated for deletion, originally by li'l ole me, but which appears to have been multiply so - a waste of people's time, arguably. Could someone with more experience explain what happened here and how we can avoid this level of duplication of effort in future? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: From the page log,[7] the article was nominated by you for deletion at 13.26 and deleted by deb at 13.59. At 14.13 the article was re-created by the original author, which I tagged for speedy deletion. I've also added a {{salt}} tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I suspected might have happened. Sneaky! And, of course, validates multiple eyes. Thanks for the answer/patience! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Retargeting redirects

When a redirect is patrolled, and then the target changes, it is currently not added back to the queue. I propose that it should be (and will write the code) - thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. --John B123 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In principle this is a good measure, although I'm a little worried about the potential volume of work that this may generate. My understanding is that any changes would get reviewed by the whitelist bot as if they were new redirects? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes for the target based checks, probably for the creator (or in this case editor) based checks, though I'll need to test that DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be, as this is not an uncommon occurrence, but I share Rosguill's concern. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap all around. So sure we should do this but I would suggest we do it on a trial basis. If we find that the volume is more than anticipated we should evaluate how much value this is adding versus other ways reviewers time could be spent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cardiac trials

Hola. Nominated this one Cardiac Trials for Speedy G11, creator removed the tag. Creator then seems to have remade the page Cardiac trials, presumably to clean the history, so nominated that, too. Struck me as a bit naughty? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Alexandermcnabb: I don't understand how the academic papers relate to the app or the company, and the other reference are source urls for the app. If it is notable I don't think it is properly sourced. I've moved it to draft. scope_creep^Talk 10:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparative stats

I’ve sometimes thought it would be useful to have a tool that allowed me to compare my actions with those of other reviewers. There must be average outcomes for NPP articles and it would be useful to me to know if I draftify a lot more articles than the average. I have an idea that I request speedy deletion less than a lot of other reviewers but I don’t really know. We’re all kind of flying blind which makes it easy to drift into bad habits. I’ve no idea whether my reviewing approach is in line with others’ or not. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Content moved from mainspace to draftspace

We've had at least 784 new articles moved to draft space so far in November. I have done a spot check and I see many actions that don't seem to meet the requirements listed in WP:DRAFTIFY. Is anyone else watching this? What do you see? ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

With 784 articles I'm sure there are a fair number that don't meet the draftification criteria (I know I've found issues from reviewers with this in the past). However, my spot check of a few random articles that appear on that first page of the category didn't jump out anything super alarming. Would love to hear more about what you've found, and my email is open if you'd prefer to go that route so as to not name and shame. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just did a quick audit of the list linked above, looking at 50 of them. There were 2-3 that I would have A7'd, rather than draftify, since they consisted of very little content and were wholly unsourced (such as Draft:1958 Lebanese presidential election). That said, the article's title did suggest they might be notable, so that would qualify for draftification. 2 others (Draft:Saba Gul for example), were draftified by their authors, which is completely acceptable. Bottom line is that out of the 50 I only saw 1 I might take issue with having been draftified, and in that case it would only be a disagreement over the veracity of the sources. Could you point to some examples, Kvng?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

How about Draft:Basin Bridge, Chennai, Draft:Liuqiang, Draft:Oleksandr Irvanets, Draft:Anglia House, Draft:Makai no Shuyaku wa Wareware da!, Draft:Piet Gerards, and Draft:Nino Lomjaria? All I had to do to find these was go to User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch and Ctrl+F for "Onel". – SD0001 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftify is only one of the tools in the NPP toolbox. Usually there may be several ways to deal with an article and different reviewers will chose different ways in this situation. For example, most of the time I will add categories to an uncategorised article, whereas another reviewer will add {{uncategorised}}. This doesn't make either way right or wrong, they are just different ways of dealing with an article without categories. The same is applicable to draftifying. Whilst I wouldn't have draftified the articles above, I don't see that it was wrong for Onel to do so, just a different way of working. --John B123 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've rewritten and sourced 1958 Lebanese presidential election, and while draftification was not a bad option given the article's state, had I come across it in the NPF I would have simply sourced it. But given the volume of reviewing being done, we cannot expect that from the reviewers and I'd say it was the right call for that specific article. I mean it had the desired effect, after all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Eddie891, Thanks. That was one I looked at yesterday because it's alphabetically early in the list. This touches on another (rhetorical?) question I have about NPP: Do we still allow new stubs in mainspace? I assume so. The easiest thing to do in this case would be to slap a {{stub}} tag on it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples

I pulled out a dozen randomly from the category. My assessment is that only two of these (Draft:María Elena nitrate works, Draft:Rafael Delorme) appear to be accomplishing what we would hope from WP:DRAFTIFY.

Many reviewers are using the default MoveToDraft edit comment (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace) to justify the move to draft space. In most cases this does not apply to the move in question. Even if it did accurately describe the issue, this justification doesn't match up well with WP:DRAFTIFY criteria.

In many cases WP:DRAFTIFY appears to be used as a last resort for marginal and complicated cases. It seems likely that many of these will be WP:G13d in 6 months serving as a backdoor route to deletion which is very specifically not what it is intended for. ~Kvng (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft	NPP edit comment	Merit (#1)	Serious problems (#2)	Not being improved (#3)	No COI (#4)	Notes
Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song)	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	No	Yes	No, draftified same day as creation	Yes	Unnotable song
Draft:Emma Corrin	incubate in draft, a red link is better than such a useless redirect	Yes	Yes	No, draftified 1 day after creation	Yes	Notable actress
Draft:Positioning theory	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	Yes	Yes	No, draftified same day as creation	Yes	Possible WP:NEOLOGISM
Draft:María Elena nitrate works	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	Yes	Yes	Maybe, draftified 7 days after creation	Yes	9 references have been added. Waiting for AfC review.
Draft:Kambainallur estate	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	Yes	Yes	No, draftified same day as creation	Yes	Unsourced stub. May meet WP:GEOLAND, otherwise merge to Kambainallur
Draft:Lucca Allen 2	article already exists in draftspace, incubate in draftspace, and merge the two.	Yes	No	Maybe, draftified 24 days after last improvement by original author	Yes	Draft:Lucca Allen 2 and Draft:Lucca Allen are substantially the same; we don't need both.
Draft:Expo 2027	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	No	Yes	No, draftified same day as creation	Yes	Unsourced stub. Likely WP:TOOSOON.
Draft:Luke McGarry	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Giant plate of puff. Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.	Yes	Maybe	Maybe, draftified 10 days after last significant improvement	No, 2 McGarry-related WP:SPAs	Has 83 refs
Draft:Rafael Delorme	Segregate UPE	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	WP:DRAFTIFY #4
Draft:Sietske Hoekstra	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	Yes	Maybe	No, draftified same day as creation	Yes	Has 5 refs. Appears to meet WP:GNG, potential WP:BLP1E problem.
Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium	Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield County Infirmary	Maybe	Maybe	Maybe, draftified 8 days after creation	Maybe, an accusation of "gaming the system"	No blanket consensus at this deletion discussion. How is moving to draft a good solution for this complex issue?
Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition	Undersourced, incubate in draftspace	Yes	Maybe	Maybe, draftified 1 month after creation	Yes	Has 6 refs. Broadcast on GMA Network (company), may meet WP:NTV.

Thanks Kvng. A couple notes. Draftify shouldn't be used in place of AfD which seems to have happened in a few of these draftifications. I would defend the draftification of Emma Corrin as offering the chance for development that a simple redirect would not have. Successfully too in retrospect. I could also defend Expo 2027 as eligible for draftifcation under A7 events (because eligibility for a CSD is a reason that draftication is permitted) but I'm not sure I want to even if by the strict letter of the law I could. Draft:Luke McGarry does seem eligible given it's a pretty clear COI, which makes it draftifiation eligible. Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium was by procedure an appropriate draftication though like you I am skeptical of it as a deletion outcome in most circumstances. However it is a permitted outcome and so AfD participants can reach that consensus. I'm borderline on Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) in terms of appropriateness but I would have definitely redirected to Róisín Machine had I been patrolling it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I score your assessment as 5 or 6 out of 12 are justified draftifications. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see how I'd given that impression, thanks for letting me clarify. I didn't see anything special to say about Positioning theory and Kambainallur estate but I'd suggest both of those draftificatinos are also within normal NPP bounds, so it's really 7 or 8 that I would find justifiable from my review. My feelings might change for the remaining 4 or 5 after hearing from the reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I draftified Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition. There are two presumed RIS. The other sources are Facebook, YouTube and a deadlink. As a tv station is is very likely to be notable, but it is also undersourced. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, how much sourcing does it need? It is unlikely an AfD would be successful. Is there some higher standard being applied here? ~Kvng (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well if you look at the two presumed RIS (refs 2 and 6), ref 2 doesn’t mention the topic at all (it’s about events five years before the topic of the article came into existence) and ref 6 is essentially a press release from the owners of the tv station saying “there’s going to be a new tv station and here is our lineup of announcers”. So the article relies entirely on self-published sources (social media and a press release), with real news only being used to support the tangential detail of what happened to a predecessor station. I imagine that the likely outcome of an AfD discussion would be ‘draftify’. Mccapra (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's beneficial that we are doing this. My assessment of this batch is below. In the following I am assuming that just slapping a notability tag on it and passing the buck to the next reviewer is not an option.

Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) - X - would have redirected to album

Emma Corrin - V - sourcing was excruciating at the time [8] and draftification seems like a reasonable way to allow the author to improve that; but it's a bit odd that the actual move to draft happened when the article had already been turned into a redirect [9]. Not sure I would have bothered with moving it at that point. Regardless, this seems sensible

Draft:Positioning theory - V - possibly notable, but completely unsourced. Sensible to draftify

Draft:María Elena nitrate works - V - same, just needs refs. Sensible to draftify

Draft:Kambainallur estate - V - same

Draft:Lucca Allen 2 - V - this is a non-standard situation, and Onel made a good call. Technically this qualifies for CSD due to duplication; draftification allows the author to salvage material and improve the existing article instead. Good judgement

Draft:Expo 2027 - V - an abundance of AGF here; I would have redirected to World's fair. Nothing lost by not having this in mainspace, however, so I don't have a problem with moving to draft here either

Draft:Luke McGarry - X - I don't get that one. There's apparently a fair few sub-standard sources in the refernces, but it's certainly not undersourced

Draft:Rafael Delorme - V - sensible under the circumstances

Draft:Sietske Hoekstra - X - doesn't strike me as undersourced. If there are BLP1E concerns, it should go to AFD

Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium - V - blanket AfD outcome that does cover this

Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition - ugh. Hard to say. I probably would have welched on that one :/

- so I'd say 8 good, 3 not, 1 can't say. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Barkeep's assessment on Emma Corrin, Expo 2027, Draft:Luke McGarry, Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium (as a result of an AfD discussion), Draft:Positioning theory, and Draft:Kambainallur estate. I would definitely have redirected Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) to the album, as per WP:NSONG, but if the reviewer thought the song passed GNG, then draftify is a valid option. In addition, Draft:María Elena nitrate works was wholly unsourced when draftified, so draftification was definitely warranted (as borne out as being notable, since it was worked on and passed through AfC). Draft:Lucca Allen 2 was sorely undersourced, and definitely a candidate for draftification. AfC editors, who come across duplicate drafts usually simply ask to have one deleted. Draft:Rafael Delorme is a clear case of UPE, and therefore draftification is an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd exclude Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium as the article was moved by the admin who closed the deletion discussion. Of the remaining 11, only one seems to have been inappropriate moving to draft. Two others I'd rather not comment on without knowing the logic behind the move. Redirecting Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) may have been a better option, but that doesn't mean the draftification was wrong. I would also note that 3 of the 11 weren't sent to draft by patrollers. --John B123 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

John that does bring up a good point. Perhaps move to draft scripts, which lower the barrier to entry for draftification, should be limited to those who have NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I agree with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I added some columns to my table above try and understand why my assessments were so far away from others here. I'm not sure how much that helped. It did, however, highlight an issue with WP:DRAFTIFY criteria #3. Many of these were draftified on the same day or the day after they were created. I don't see how one can argue that there is no evidence of active improvement at such an early stage. ~Kvng (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant timescale is not time after creation, but time after last edit that should be considered. I don't see how anybody could argue that active improvement is still happening 24 hours plus after the last edit. If you look at the documentation of {{in use}}, it effectively defines "active editing" as ending 2 hours after the last edit. --John B123 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a very useful exercise and some kind of critical review is very welcome. It is striking however that your table takes no account of my response to you above. In your column “serious problems” you’ve listed the article I reviewed as “maybe” when, as I explained above, it is entirely sourced to non-independent sources, so I believe it should say “serious problems/definitely.”

If 2 hours is the threshold, that explains why criteria #3 hasn't come into play here. I guess I'm a turtle and was thinking a week of inactivity would be a reasonable threshold. And, yeah, my new columns were not done carefully.

The stated purpose of these criteria is to allow a move to draft as an alternative to deletion. We shouldn't be using WP:DRAFTIFY for articles that are not likely to be deleted. I think that is what WP:DRAFTIFY #2 the article does not meet the required standard is trying to say. Maybe it should just say, the article is likely to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Cross-venue faq or best practice guideline needed

I'd like to see a FAQ, or some best practices recommendations added somewhere, for those of us who got here by the side door, trying to determine the best procedure in a given case. My path here was after draftifying A Nation on Trial based on the fact that it's been an unreferenced stub for eight years, but other approaches are possible. After notifying the creator (who remains only intermittently active), I considered whether to Afd it, place a {{merge to}} template, or add the Draft to WP:AFC. I ended up here, after noticing the {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} template added to the Draft by a bot, and saw this highly related section title.

In general, while the documentation at individual guideline, how-to, info, and help pages is good, such as at WP:AFD, WP:MERGE, WP:AFC, WP:MOVE, WP:DRAFTS, WP:NPP, Template:Unreferenced, and so on, they are targeted at individual processes (i.e. the solution), rather than at how to determine which path to take (i.e., the question, and analysis of it). I'm not exactly sure of the solution—a FAQ, maybe?—but it seems like there should be better attention paid in our documentation generally to specific use cases faced by users (e.g., "What do I do with this long-term unreferenced stub?"), and then a paragraph or two of the possible avenues available to address it, and in particular, how to choose among them, given the characteristics of the individual case. The editor can then proceed from the question, to a list of options for possible resolution, to whatever the best procedure seems to be.

In this individual example of A Nation on Trial, I'd still like to know whether Draftifying was a good idea, but it's not obvious how to make that call, other than relying on general experience and knowledge of how things go around here. But I'm more interested in addressing the general case, of which that is merely an example. Without necessarily having to lay it out as a guideline (I'm not interested in instruction creep), we ought to be able to get people to the right guideline more efficiently, given a particular issue they are facing. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, there are some guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, but these could possibly be expanded further. What to do with older unreferenced articles such as A Nation on Trial is a problem. From WP:DRAFTIFY: "The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. (Old pages, and pages by experienced editors, deserve an AfD discussion)", so that's not really an option. Sending to AfD may not be an option as when carrying out the WP:BEFORE procedure you may well find the subject meets notability requirements. Changing to a redirect is an option if there is a suitable target. Normally with books you would redirect to the author, but in this case as there are two authors then that's not really an option either. That probably only leaves WP:PROD. (On a side note, when moving to draft it's best to tag the resulting redirect with {{Db-r2}} so it gets deleted.) Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John B123:, thanks for your thoughts. As far as redirects are concerned, as this is a debunking-style book which addresses and attacks a single book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, that is the likely redirect target, if that's the approach taken. I'm kind of more interested in the more general topic of how to get from a use case to the right solution when many options are available. There's already a ton of doc out there, but they are more solution- than question-oriented, and we need more of the latter, imho. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(post-ec) I could have moved without redirect; I'll add the Db-r2. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Oh, you already did; thanks! However, on further reflection, followed my own advice above, and recast it as a redirect to the other book's criticism section. Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, it might be wise to request a history merge of the draft into the redirect to preserve the page history.

Going back to your point, some "what to do in this situation" pages would be useful rather than trawling through numerous pages looking for an answer. Probably better as essays rather then guidelines to allow the flexibility needed as every case will be different. --John B123 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: what if I just WP:SWAP the two, so the redirect gets the history? As long as we believe the redirect remains the surviving twin, this saves anybody having to do the HISTMERGE. Is there a downside, though, if someone rescues the draft, then we end up with a more complex histmerge later, so should we just do it now, just in case?

Yeah, essays sound fine, or an WP:INFOPAGE, like WP:MERGE is, as long as it's findable. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: If you WP:SWAP, you could blank the redirect once moved to draft and tag with WP:G7 to save any possible problems in future. --John B123 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@John B123:, Thanks.  Done Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Individual episode articles & GNG

There is a discussion over at WT:TV that maybe of interest to NPP regarding TV shows that have an individual article for most or all episodes and if they meet WP:GNG. The editor that started the discussion filed three batch AFDs regarding episodes of the current season of The Simpsons, various episodes from Game of Thrones and most of The Walking Dead episode articles. In the case of The Simpsons every episode was reviewed by someone here at NPP. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

One or two interesting numbers to show?

I keep wondering about the two big numbers that define the backlog. The total number of new pages entering the backlog (e.g per day or week) and the number of reviews being completed (e.g. per day or week) Are these numbers available somewhere? Would it be good / feasible to show them here? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the number of new pages entering the backlog, but the number of reviews completed per week is on the bottom left section of the new pages feed, right under total unreviewed pages. Mcampany (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You can get the number of new pages created daily from Wikimedia [10] (content column} --John B123 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Edit to add: Presumably this figure includes creations by autopatrolled editors that wouldn't be in the NPP feed. --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Twitter's use of Wikipedia

This article may be of interest to New Page Patrollers as we might see creation of biographies with the intent to use Wikipedia for Twitter verification purposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my. That article does a good job of laying out the potential problem. “It’s a form of Twitter offloading its work to us and expecting us to deal with it” sounds about right :/ And I do so love barrel-bottom-scraping-sourced celeb biographies... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Also being discussed on the AFC talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Influx_of_work_incoming. – SD0001 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this has been the case for a while now with social media. I ran into one editor who wanted a Wikipedia biography in order to get verified, I believe, it was on Instagram. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this might cause a re-evaluation of our GNG guidelines, so that all the senseless niche online sources which are flooding us no longer carry as much weight.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 01:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem I see is that previously, many draft autobiographies were vanity projects. Understandable but as entrepreneurs, rappers, streamers or small companies, they lack reliable source coverage and have only user-generated or paid references. These pages are extremely common. But social media verification can lead to bringing one more visibility, getting more followers, sponsorship deals, in short, fame & money. So, it's not just an ego thing to have a Wikipedia article on oneself or ones company, it becomes a crucial career step. I think that if this becomes the primary vehicle for social media verification, there will be a great deal more pushback to reviewers' draft rejections as well as articles placed right into main space which face speedy deletion. And, as I think many editors and admins soon discover, it's not editing work that is demanding, it's the challenges to decisions that, while understandable, can be very time-consuming. But, I'm speculating, maybe it won't be as bad as I expect! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Liz, unfortunately, I foresee it being much worse. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Many niche sources are fine, the real problem is undisclosed pr outlets such as Forbes contributors, Huffington Post Contributors and many SEO pay to publish sites, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Live review exercise

A while back Slashme, Vexations, Rosguill, and I got together and did some patrolling together. This let us talk about about approaches, share techniques, and otherwise engage in some great peer discussion. I think it was useful for those of us who were more experienced and Slashme definitely seemed to get a lot out of it as a newer reviewer. I'm wondering if there might be interest in doing something again on Saturday December 5 at 17001600 UTC (11 AM Eastern). We used Mattermost last time which worked alright. If we get a bigger crowd we might want to see if anyone has a licensed Zoom account to use so we could make do breakout rooms. If you're interested please sign-up below. When we get a little closer we can then start to work out logistics and details. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that 12:00 AM Eastern? (-5) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I hate UTC. My goal was to make it 11 AM Eastern (as I know from some other calls that the time works for a huge swath of the world, sorry Australia/New Zealand). So that does appear to be 1600 UTC. I'll fix. Thanks @Elmidae. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Zonestamp for this time (localized time for this event) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm in! We might consider an approach where we cycle through reviewers, with the audience giving advice. --Slashme (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagging User:Ainali who has streamed live Wikipedia editing in the past. Any thoughts? Interested to join? --Slashme (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, just an idea, but it'd be handy if the more experienced reviewers (our celebrated top ten? :) could cycle a 'Review of the day' where they share an interesting, textbook or borderline decision they took on an article? Dumping it here as a section, for instance. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. As I haven't done much reviewing on enwp, I don't have many thoughts, but am happy to join as a newbie. Ainali (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, this is a cool idea, although "Review of the Week" might be easier to keep up. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I'll take weekly. I'll take all the guidance I can, although I'm starting to find my feet. Lower down the list lurk some gnarly decisions, though! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Is it still 1600 UTC, which should 1600 in the uk? scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep the Zonestamp above should hopefully clarify but yes it was meant to be 1600 UTC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I never saw that, sorry. Next time. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed yes

• Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• I was unable to participate last time, plus just coming back from a long hiatus, but I'll make an effort to be available (9 am AZ time).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I've been away from NPP for a while, so this will be a good excuse to get me back into it. Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Gazal world (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'll mark it in my calendar! Was thinking just yesterday that we should do it again. --Slashme (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Ainali (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Look forward to it. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tentative yes

• Vexations (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's a wee bit late for me but very interested as, frankly, I could use the help - great idea. Will try and make it! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be interested. scope_creep^Talk 12:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe/maybe not

• We'll see if I'm free by then. Support doing this even if I can't make it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• In principle I'm in but because of the nature of my work I'd find it difficult to commit to a definite day/time. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'll be there for a long time, so I don't think it's a problem if people check in an hour or two late, or check out after an hour or two. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's a great idea, and I'd like to be there. We shall see -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hope I can make it! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• I hope to attend but I can't make any promises. I have to present at a conference a few hours after this event, so if the timing starts looking too tight I'll have to skip this. I'd like to attend the next one though! Mcampany (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Sounds good, I can try to make it but no promises. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Meeting details

Thanks to Ajpolino for offering to be the host of the Zoom room. The meeting ID is 968 5509 7448 and passcode is 676697 or you should be able to click on this link. You shouldn't need to formally register with Zoom in order to join (though you can get free accounts if you want). My thinking is that we'd divide into several small groups (3-5 people) for the actual exercise using breakout rooms. I plan to give a reminder ping to all who've expressed interest sometime on Thursday/Friday but welcome any other thoughts or ideas on how we structure this now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Courtesy reminder ping to those who have responded: @Onel5969, Ajpolino, Gazal world, Slashme, Ainali, Mccapra, Vexations, Elmidae, Curb Safe Charmer, Alexandermcnabb, Scope creep, Rosguill, John B123, Eddie891, L235, Mcampany, and Alucard 16: Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

One thought: if one can't or doesn't want to install the Zoom app, or just gets regularly frozen out by it (as I do), Zoom meetings can be attended in-browser. However, there's no "gallery" view in the browser version - you will only ever see the current speaker who snaps into focus. This can be quite annoying.

If multiple people have this issue, we could use Jitsi instead; it would actually be my first choice, as it's much easier to use (no registration, downloads, time limits, meetings IDs and passwords, just a chosen web address) and has everything natively in-browser. There's no breakout room functionality, but since a new instance can just be fired off by choosing a new name and hopping over (e.g., we are at /NPPMeet; then split up into /NPPMeet_1, /NPPMeet_2 etc.) this should not be a hindrance. Just putting this out there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - just a note thanking all who participated. It was a very helpful exercise, and I would recommend it for other NPPers to participate in the future, especially newer editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  I absolutely agree, this was really valuable and very enjoyable. Thank you all! --Slashme (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Really good use of a couple of hours and learned about some great tools. Thanks everyone. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Truly sorry to have missed this - did anyone record it or would participants care to share key takeaways here? And yes, I know that's a cop-out... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  I need to apologise too. I've been having internet problems for the past few days. --John B123 (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing CSD tags

Hiya. So we're told a page creator shouldn't remove a CSD tag, but what do we do when they do? AfD? Also, just had the author of this one Asad Ali Palijo remove the speedy tag and then create a redirect while maintaining the page content. This appears to have subsequently marked the page as autopatrolled? Which is a glitch, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, first, if the article creator removes a CSD tag, simply restore it, then throw a {{subst:uw-speedy1|Asad Ali Palijo}} vandalism tag on their talk page. And continue to re-add it if they continue to remove it, and place the appropriate vandalism template on their talk page. Reverting vandalism is not edit-warring. Second, according to the logs, it looks like you "patrolled" it at 10:29, before "reviewing" it as unreviewed a minute later. So you might have accidently misclicked on something. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:onel5969, that's handy to know. The idea that I might have clicked on something stupid is, of course, inconceivable. I'm even allowed near red buttons, I'll have you know! Buttons like THIS one! *boom* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, I mean... if they just keep removing it you can report them for vandalism and/or 3RR if you send them a warning. But yeah generally one restore of the tag and a polite message saying that removing it isn't allowed is sufficient. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Odo Ere, History

Okay, I'd like as many eyes on this article as possible. No copyvio, but imo a definite POV issue. The funniest thing is that it's an article about the history of a town, and yet the town does not have its own article. It looks incredibly well-cited, but the vast majority of citations are not available online. I haven't looked at each title, but a cursory review of them didn't appear to contain the name of the town in any of them. Several of them did contain Ere, but none had Odo Ere. I'd love to hear the thoughts of other reviewers. One last thing, I did a search on those sources that are available online, and Odo Ere was not mentioned in any of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, for a start I'd invoke @Celestina007: because she's Nigerian and therefore has automatic total knowledge of every village in a country four times the size of the UK. Odo Ere is most definitely a thing, but there's so much in here that's untenable. I'd pare back this article to the basic, cited and online linked facts and just rip everything else out because it's so obviously OR. Did something not dissimilar to Toyah Wilcox a while back - an article so full of cruft it was hard to see the facts. Happy to do that edit if we agree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen cases where an article creator basically writes a free-form essay, then googles the topic and randomly uses whatever comes up to “source” individual statements in the article. This may have happened here but on a first view it may just be a combination of overzealous sourcing, inexperience and lack of knowledge of how to format references. I’ll take a look today. Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, thanks for notifying me about this and thanks for the kind words mate but in a country with six geo-political zones, 300 tribes & 520 languages, i most definitely do not know about every village in Nigeria. I live in Southern Nigeria and unfortunately may not be of help here. Left to me i would nominate it for deletion or in the very least, move the article to draftspace because as Mccapra noted, the sourcing is not there, it is basically blatant OR, and most interesting as onel5969 stated is Odo Ere itself has no article of its own. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Celestina007, that was me being 'witty' (ahem) - I didn't expect you'd know Odo Ere but thought you might understand the context more than others. I know, I know, I should have said that rather than being smart... *Sigh* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve read it a couple of times now and it looks to me like a case for draftifying. It should be renamed, unsourced sections stripped out, POV language removed.... but I think there’s a decent article trapped inside it. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW agree. I'll do the dirty deed... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, thank you, one less thing for me to do today. And thank all of you for your input. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve started working on it in draft and I’m waiting to hear from the creator. Mccapra (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Request Review on Verdis

Hello,

This page was accepted as a redirect a few months ago, but it seems to have now reached enough notability to be a full article as it has increased in sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdis The only problem is, it is not indexing. Could it be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.255 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The article was deleted at AfD earlier this year. A micronation created by a 14 year old Australian lad is going to need some mainstream sourcing to convince people of notability. Looking at your IP, is there a WP:COI here? --John B123 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear John B123 It's on RTL, a large news group in Europe along with Likaclub a known political news site in Croatia, etc. And no, I have no relation to the 'President'. - User:180.150.36.255

I've restored the redirect as the recreated article doesn't address any of the issues brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis. The Lika source is a duplicate of the RTL source, which was in the article at the time of the AfD. The other sources are the micronation's own website/social media and reprinted press releases. In light of the long history of sockpuppetry evident at Free Republic of Verdis, a passing administrator might consider protecting the redirect. Spicy (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, serendipity. I just scooted it over to AfD again, so it seems that redirect was undone. I had the title on my watchlist but don't remember what it looked like last time, thus didn't go for G4. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

AfD/CSD

Hi all. While reviewing, I started an AfD for Margaret Keenan (Covid 19 Vaccine) because I found it should be made into a redirect. I later realised that another page on the same person already existed (Margaret Keenan) and had already been turned into a redirect. Only then I realised that the page should be nominated for CSD under A10. Now, what is the right procedure: wait until the AfD is closed or is it permissible to also tag the page for CSD? Modussiccandi (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure A10 is applicable as the "existing article" is a redirect not an article. Also A10 should not be used if the new title is a plausible redirect. You can't withdraw the AfD nomination now as it has both keep and delete !votes. (Even if you could, withdrawing it from AfD and then redirecting might be viewed as trying to manipulate the system). Probably best to just let the AfD run. Regards --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is quite useful. I was suspecting that waiting for the AfD to close might be the best option. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with John B123, once the AfD is started, it needs to run it's course, unless one of the "speedy" criteria is met, which is not so in this case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, though I will also gently nudge that ideally investigating such unusual disambiguators, is a worthwhile investment of time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

NPP Awards

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.

---

It's that time of the year (or actually was about 2 weeks ago when the NPP user right had its anniversary): time to give out our Reviewer of the Year award. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by last year's recipient, Rosguill who patrolled the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	65,518	Patrol Page Curation
2	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	63,790	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	18,850	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	17,220	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,756	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,142	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,849	Patrol Page Curation
8	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,651	Patrol Page Curation
9	Utopes (talk)	4,487	Patrol Page Curation
10	Mccapra (talk)	4,353	Patrol Page Curation

This year I am proposing that John B123 be named reviewer of the year. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue (down to around 3,000 articles) by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

I am also proposing that we give a special NPP Technical Achievement award to DannyS712. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition. I have used my very poor graphic design skills to make such an award but if anyone wants to do me better I would welcome it.

Award endorsements

Proposed that we name John B123 reviewer of the year and give a special technical achievement award to DannyS712.

1. Endorse as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
2. Endorse great work all around. John's level of contribution is astounding considering that they only started reviewing articles 8 months ago. Meanwhile, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that without DannyS712's help, consistently doing quality control on new redirects would simply not be possible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
3. Endorse Hear, hear! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
4. Endorse, absolutely. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
5. Endorse Great stuff! Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
6. Endorse Wow. Amazing work from all. John's work over the short tenure is awesome and to be commended. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
7. Endorse Incredible work! Hughesdarren (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
8. Endorse. As co-ord emeritus and, for all intents and purposes, retired from Wikipedia. Thank you everyone for reducing this backlog. Please continue to keep up the good work so that I can retain some good memories of some of the things I got done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
9. Endorse Stellar work!! scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
10. Endorse naming John B123 as the reviewer of the year,  No comment with respect to the other part --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
11. Endorse both per all above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
12. Endorse I would like to thank everyone for all the hard work you put in daily!! It is recognized and greatly appreciated. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:45, 23 November 2020 (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.

Thanks

Thanks everybody, much apricated <insert long Oscar type speech here>. Congratulation to DannyS712 on his award for his bot that saves us all a lot of time. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 congratulations to you as well, and thanks - though I haven't actually gotten any award, just being told I won :) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Good work!

As they say: it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. EEng 23:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hearty congrats all round, particularly to the benign (omni)presence which is User:John B123! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Skyscrapers

There are several editors creating many articles on skyscrapers at the moment, most stubs with one or two references. Just to check I'm not missing anything, there is no inherent notability for skyscrapers and they need to pass GNG? Regards --John B123 (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Or WP:GEOFEAT. Mccapra (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

At AfD, there is a feeling that skyscrapers (of at least a certain height) are almost sure to pass GNG (see the 2nd delete comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chengmai Center). So the overriding standards is GNG (which also goes into GEOFEAT as well) but no, there is no SN particularly for skyscrapers. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --John B123 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Fatager

Okay, this is something that I'd like some eyes on. First, this place actually existed, but there are issues regarding the sourcing. The citations 7-10 are accessible online, and none of them refer to this as a kingdom, although #9 refers to it as a Sultanate, while the others refer to it as a province, a place with a governor (which would indicate not a kingdom), and a plain, although a plain with a ruler. There is also a question of the actual name, since all 4 of them refer to place as "Fetegar", rather than Fatager. In searching on Google Books, I can't find any information on the books listed, so there is no way to check them out. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, there's a handful of other articles mentioning "Fetegar", and it draws a fair amount of results on Google Scholar, so I'd guess that's the real name. It seems to largely be referred to as a province. I would move it to that title, tag it with {{accuracy}} and {{expert needed}}, and mention the issues with sourcing on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Its creator has made a whole bunch of these pages and there seems to be a great deal of OR going on in them. "By Somali reckoning" and "from a Somali point of view the kingdom was founded by" are typical. Would they not all belong in Draft until they can be properly sourced? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

There’s been a lot of new articles recently trying to get wiki-recognition for independent/autonomous regions of Somalia and their “Presidents” and carving out distinctive histories for one place or another. Mccapra (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'm also moving it to Fetegar, as that seems to be the most common name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Righteous Among the Nations

Curious thing. In doing the rear of the queue, I've come upon a slew of articles relating to folks who have been awarded this Israeli honor. All appear to have been made by new editors, and all by different editors. Most are only sourced to yadvashem.org (the group who gives out the designation). With about 27,000 recipients, not sure if that is exclusive enough to automatically confer notability. A few, upon doing searches do get mentioned in other sources, and a couple even seem to have enough in-depth sourcing to pass GNG. But the coincidence and timing of these articles raises my suspicion hackles. I'm wondering if this is a single person using multiple accounts, or if this is a group of paid editors creating these articles to boost the visibility of the honor? Some of the articles are: Ludwig Wörl, Hardaga family, Henryk Rolirad, Peter Zürcher (who seemed to have enough coverage in various publications on Google Books), Robert Miastriau, Aldo Brunacci, Jonas Paulavičius (also appears to meet GNG). Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve looked at these articles. My assumption is that there has been an organised editing drive of some sort. I’ve tagged several for sourcing, and my feeling is many of them are likely to be notable, but they need to demonstrate this with more sources than just Yad Vashem. Mccapra (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Catching forks

I've been seeing an increasing number of new pages that are largely forks of other pages with only a slightly different scope. Sometimes they're created because the author just didn't check to see if the page already existed and sometimes it's because they just wanted to create their own thing rather than collaborate. They are always a pain to deal with, since the author tends to put up a fight, but they're easier to deal with when nipped in the bud at NPP before the author has become too invested in them. Many reviewers seem to miss them, though, because if you don't know about the other page(s), the new page may look perfectly fine.

I'd like to hear from folks about what we might be able to do to stop these from slipping through the cracks. We could add something to the tutorial encouraging reviewers to check, but I think a more effective approach might be to add three related pages (using the same extension that adds them on mobile) to the info tab of the page curation tool. This would not only allow reviewers to see possible forks, but also to better familiarize themselves with the topic area by offering easy access to more established pages.

Forks are a massive problem for Wikipedia because they not only make navigation harder for readers but split editor energy, creating twice as much work. It's important that we clamp down on them, and I'm open to any ideas that could help with that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I find that I catch unintentional ones, if I do, by realizing that - hang on, this sounds like a pretty fundamental thing to not have an article for in 2020, let's check likely synonyms. Is that comparable to what the extension does? Otherwise I think the best method to improve the chance of catching these is to develop a feel for what class of topic is likely to have been covered/not covered at this stage in the game.

I have the impression that the intentional ones often give themselves away by linking to their "parent" as a See Also; that's worth checking.

Of course most of us don't stand a chance when it comes to assessing content overlap re Gauss derivatives of fermion spin functions or what have you, and I've been dropping some such onto project talk pages with a plea to check for forking. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how related pages works, but it does a decently good job of listing similar pages. And yeah, having a feel for which topics should already have a page does sometimes help me find them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Working from the back of the queue, I come across a fair amount of these, and most are of the "intentional" type. A perfect example is Municipalities of Nepal, which is a clear fork of List of cities in Nepal (which, as Elmidae points out links to the fork). And I agree, they are an issue. These are different than articles which follow WP:SPLIT, but are very detrimental to a project which is supposed to be an encyclopedia/gazetteer/almanac. I think Sdkb is correct that they are a pain to deal with, opening the reviewer to potential retaliation. I rely heavily on the curation tool (perhaps too much I expect), but I think Sdkb's suggestion of adding something to curation tool which would highlight that (much like the current auto copyvio check) would be a great asset. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a small WP:NPPFORK section to the tutorial, and I'll make the related pages suggestion at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements if others agree it'd be useful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean I think you should make the suggestion regardless on suggested improvements. Before we go to Community Wishlist we'll need to narrow and focus but it's best to have a wide range of stuff there. But I will add that I feel pretty strongly that when we go next to the wishlist (which I think right now should be 2021) we need to do it with an ask to modernize the codebase for NPP. See more in this conversation I had as they wrapped up work on our last wishlist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Posted to the suggestions page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice please

On List of Interior Ministers of Lebanon. Someone had the idea of copying a page from the Lebanese government website into wikitables, but then gave up, leaving the article mostly empty. Although there’s only one source, it’s authoritative, and a list of ministers is a good thing to have. Interestingly the article creator added a bunch of ministers from before 1943 (Lebanese independence) who don’t appear on the government website, without any source. I think the options are patrol and pass because the topic is clearly notable, tagging for more sources, or draftify because the sourcing isn’t sufficient, but I’m not sure which is best. Any views? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start by draftifying because of the major gaps (it wouldn't pass AfC). If you know the sources, then you can take time to fill it in. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with draftifying. Other than one slight tweak on 12/11, it has seen any significant improvement in almost a month. I might also suggest to the editor that they merge this onto Ministry of Interior and Municipalities (Lebanon), which is currently a stub, and the list would do nicely there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry

I’d appreciate other eyes on this. To me it reeks of promotion of a novel therapy. Created by new account Saluteossea (“bone health”). The technique clearly has been discussed in published papers but the exhaustive detail of the article looks like a veneer of scientific truthiness. Am I being paranoid? Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been translated from the Italian article it:Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry which was created on 27 November. Both versions were created by new user Saluteossea. It strikes me as promotional too, but maybe not enough for a WP:G11 given the number of medical sources? --John B123 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I know it has a lot of refs, but swaths of it are still unreferenced. For example the first section has zero sources, and most of the 3rd, 6th and 8th sections are unsourced. Add to that phrases like, "an innovative, non-ionizing technology" and "As widely reported in the scientific literature" (which is not supported by the single citation), indicate a promotional aspect. To me, the whole thing reeks of a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming at this from a medical editor's perspective. Most of the refs a) fail WP:MEDRS - they are primary source studies, not review papers, textbooks or clinical guidelines and b) are published by the same group of researchers, so are not really independent. [17] is actually a review paper and may be usable but the vast majority of the article content does not satisfy MEDRS and I am not sure there would be much left if it were to be trimmed. Basically, it strikes me as WP:TOOSOON. This isn't my field though and I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search, so I've posted on WikiProject Medicine to get some other editors' perspectives. Spicy (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

John B123, if you aren't sure whether it's enough for G11, then it's not. That's what "unambiguous" means: nobody would question it. "Buy this on my website now!" is unambiguous. If you think there's any possibility of a good-faith editor even wondering, then it's ambiguous, and therefore AFD material, not CSD material.

Having looked briefly at it, it doesn't qualify for CSD, and I think that it would survive AFD. I'd recommend shortening it and maybe looking for a potential merge target. A List of medical imaging techniques would be handy, if it existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it provides too much detail, but a short stub is warranted. Ruslik_Zero 08:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Mccapra (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I came across this article in the queue today. Given the discussion here, as well as the fact that Saluteossea has provided all of the images for the article as (apparently legitimate) "own work", I've marked it as reviewed, tagged it with {{COI}}, and sent Saluteossea a note about COI editing. If people find a suitable merge target I have no issue with that, but it doesn't seem like we were about to do so and it otherwise seems to pass muster for staying in mainspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My expertise is not in medical but in the engineering/ physics areas involved including 3D imaging/ image processing (including acoustic imaging) The article content has two main groups. Claims of good test results (which I did not evaluate) plus what appears to be a technical explanation on how it works. On the latter, despite appearances, there really is no technical explanation of how it works. Any real explanation has been left out. It probably should be an article, but needs to be whacked down to what independent sources have said. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cyrillic homographs

For others who have been tricked into researching a topic before noticing that the title used homographs to bypass watchlists and deletion logs, here's a script which higlights Cyrillic letters in titles: Highlight homographs in title.js.

Just this morning I came across two articles that used this trick (switching "a"s out with the Cyrillic letter а).

– Thjarkur (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Þjarkur, wow. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Þjarkur, brilliant. --John B123 (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I had a look through the entire list of new pages and did not find any more. Please report these editors, they should be blocked on sight. MER-C 11:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability films

I just came across to these two articles: Dial 100 (2021 film) and Draft:Phone Bhoot created by the same user. Dial 100 has been reviewed recently, and it seems OK to me. However the Draft:Phone Bhoot was declined. Both articles are written in the same pattern. Both articles have enough sources. Films which have commenced principal photography deserve their own article. Right? In this case what should be done? Phone Bhoot Deserves its own article? or Dial 100 should be nominated for deletion? --Gazal world (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that Phone Boot was already deleted at AfD as well. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

From WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". That suggests to me neither meet WP:NFILM. --John B123 (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So in this case, If the trailer of the film has been released on the official YouTube channel, we should keep the article. Right? --Gazal world (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "video" in publicly released (theatres or video) refers to films that are released straight to video/dvd/digital rather than shown in cinemas first, not trailers on youtube. Some films are subsequently cancelled even though a trailer has been released. --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gazal world: It depends on the sources. There's been recent discussion at the film project about this. If the trailer is all that is known about the film, then it's a strong no. Some users advocate for only having articles after a film is released, but sometimes there are notable productions that are cancelled or not released after a lot is known about them, and sometimes there are released films of which nothing is known besides it existing. There's also the in-between of films that are completed, distributed in festivals for years, but struggle to find a VOD or theatrical release - despite the festivals, a public release is what's counted - like Being Impossible, which obviously has a lot of production detail and reviews, and in this case analysis and a submission to the Oscars. A film and a film's production can both be notable; in fact, a film article without any production information is liable to be deemed non-notable. The gray lines of release mean it comes down to if you can argue it is notable, for which you need sources and examples, so there's no hard line rule on having X or Y (e.g. a wide release, a trailer, etc.) as a notability cut-off. If all you have is a trailer, all you can say is "it should exist soon", which isn't notable. If you have a film that is released but never reviewed and no RS cares enough to talk about its production, all you can say is "it has existed since X date", which isn't really notable, either, though there's a lower bar for film notability overall, I've noticed. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this explanation matches my understanding and experience well. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

plant/animal stubs

Hi. Recently there have been a spate of plant/animal stubs coming through NPP. Most are simple approvals, but recently there have been a bunch which the sole source was International Plant Names Index, which I took as a reliable source, however, while reliable, there is an issue with it I didn't know about, see the end of this discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article that sparked all of this off, Pleurothallis cactantha/Specklinia cactantha, there seems to be some disagreement amongst experts as to the "correct" naming system identification judging by the identifiers on the dual Taxon bar. Looking at this version [11] of Pleurothallis cactantha before it was redirected, with 7 identifiers listed I wouldn't have questioned the naming.

On a different subject, there have been a large number of unreferenced beetle stubs created overnight (such as Carabus biroi) --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

John B123, I just moved them all to draft and left a message on their talk page. I would have left them alone, to see if they got improved, but they went on to create more articles and templates, after getting warned on their talkpage, rather than going back and fixing those stubs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 Well done, I was considering doing that myself. --John B123 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

John B123, It was a choice of that, or redirecting them to the closest classification. 6 of one, you know? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, Starzoner stubs. It seems to be one step forward, 3/4 step backwards with this editor over the last half year or so :/ The IPNI synonyms issue is real, and the resultant articles will all have to be fixed, by moving and rewording. What they should be (and previously have been) using as a source is WCSP or POWO/Kew [12] which is very clear about synonymy. Wikiprojects:Plants has guidelines on that - while it is true that the synonymy is not always entirely fixed, there IS consensus on what sources we should be treating as authoritative, and IPNI ain't it. Hopefully they've gotten the message now; it's a bit much to ask of reviewers to check every one of hundreds of stubs for synonymy... the editor has now stated that they "will manually fix them all", which historically has not been a guarantee that anything will happen. Let's please keep an eye out for this particular issue, because if there's no change then someone will have to apply the brakes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae, now warned, will be on the lookout. It's more time-consuming, but after all, that's what we do here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Erk! Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thomas George Rutherford

Sorry for asking this here. I Don't know which is the right place for asking. Do we really need such one-line article? --Gazal world (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Was wondering the same: should we just wave through hopeless stubs as long as they meet an SNG? Modussiccandi (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. He was governor for two years so there is a good chance that that article can be built out. We gain nothing by zapping it now. Mccapra (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I have seen many draftifications of many notable articles. So I asked. --Gazal world (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Well the sources look satisfactory to me so I don’t think notability is in doubt. An article shouldn’t be draftified just because it’s a stub. Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept. As governor, if someone takes the time to go through historical newspapers and books about the state, there is sure to be coverage, but it will take a lot of work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A Governor of an Indian state passes WP:POLITICIAN and the article is referenced. Annoying as it is to have one-liners, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it. This user has created around 900 minimal stubs since August 2018. Articles created before that seem to have more substance.[13] Be interesting to know when they were granted autopatrolled rights. --John B123 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

John B123, per Special:UserRights/Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards: 17:39, 22 June 2009 Acalamari talk contribs changed group membership for Pharaoh of the Wizards from rollbacker to rollbacker and autopatrolled (On User:JVbot/patrol whitelist) (thank) Vexations (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: Thanks for that. --John B123 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Andrei Andreev (lawyеr)

Is it just my computer or is the "e" in lawyer in the title highlighted in green? --John B123 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

John B123, no. I think that's part of the script on Cyrillic homographs, which is discussed above. The "e" is an "е". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The creator was attempting to evade detection by using a different e than the correct one for Andrei Andreev (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten all about that. --John B123 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

SNG RfC

An RfC on the Subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) wording has been started and might be of interest to New page Patrollers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Backlog, or lack thereof

We've leveled off around the 1700-1900 articles level. But I was curious how many of those were old articles, and how many of them have been waiting a long time. As of this writing, there are only 26 articles in the queue over a month old, and most of those are articles created from redirects, etc. Nice job all of you who slog away at the back of the queue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that while the backlog size is increasing again now, this doesn't appear to be for lack of effort on our end, as 6799 articles reviewed in the last week is the highest number I recall seeing on the new pages feed page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've never looked too closely at the number of new articles being created each day/week/month but I would expect some ebb and flow to the year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm neurotic and look at the # in the queue on a daily basis. We got it down to slightly below 1800, and now it's back up to almost 2000. Yesterday, it was down in the mid-1800s, and between then and now about 1500 new articles were added. And they are not at the end of the queue, which is still quite low (38 over a month old, and 72 from 12/17 and back - which is where I left off today in my patrol - and 18 of those are marked for deletion, so someone's already looked at them). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPPS - 500 or 1000 edits recommended to become a student?

Howdy. I'm reading through NPPS and I notice it says 500 suggested edits in one spot, and 1000 farther down the page. Do we have a consensus on which is better? If so, I'm happy to edit the numbers to agree with each other. Personally, I'd suggest 1000, since deletion policy is complicated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I don't know how others would think about this, but to me 1000 mainspace edits as a minimum requirement for a student at NPPS seems to be way too many, especially considering the minimum for the *NPP right itself* is 500 mainspace edits. Overly stringent requirements would do more harm than good to the community as it deters valuable contributors from joining the team. In any event, I think it should be within a tutor's discretion to take any students they deem appropriate, instead of adhering to any arbitrary edit count numbers. -- Dps04 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is 500 or 1000, the NPPS suggestion should harmonize with the NPP requirement. Personally, I think it should be a requirement of NPP that they complete the NPP school. If NPPS is made a requirement of NPP, than I would agree to the 500 limit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

We have enough trouble finding new people to be NPP without adding another hoop. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I've aligned the number there to NPR minimums. Of course each trainer can decide whether or not to accept a student. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tutorial changes

I have, somewhat unexpectedly even to myself, begun to make changes to the Tutorial. My goals are to update to reflect current practice (much of the focus were on items true prior to WP:ACPERM) while also reflecting NPP values more explicitly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Geography articles

Hi. Just wanted to point out that there's an editor doing yoeman's work on creating river articles, however, they are simply not supplying valid references to support all the information in the article. See this discussion on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussions on the talk page seem to be having no effect, anybody any ideas? --John B123 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

John B123, I just keep removing the information. Hopefully, eventually they will get tired of having all that work erased. I don't think it's time for taking it to ANI yet. But maybe? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But it will take consistency among all reviewers to get the point across. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And the persistent ignorance continues. See my talk page, and then the above referenced discussion for my response. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

They're using navboxes for references now. [14] --John B123 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Color coded flowchart

Hello all. I've been studying NPP lately. The flowchart is fantastic--great job to whoever made it. I added some colors to it in case anybody is interested. [15] If you find it useful, let me know and I can upload it to Wikipedia in whatever format you prefer (png, svg, pdf). Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)