Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• May backlog drive

NPP backlog

Articles

9915 ↓142

Oldest article

14 months old

Redirects

28430

Oldest redirect

5 months old

Article reviews

1826

Redirect reviews

18132

• There is a very large articles backlog
• There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of May 14, 2024

PE & UPE

So...I wonder if our NPP queue grows whenever outfits like this one offer discounts. 😳 Makes volunteering to create good articles a little harder to swallow when someone else is getting paid for your work. It's possible that I'm just being grumpy but I was looking up drag & drop editing for a friend's website and that ad popped up in the top of the Google search. Atsme 💬 📧 01:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Could just be a scam. There is a large list of known websites offering paid editing services that have no known editors on-wiki, although I don't remember where it is. I've always wondered whether we are that bad at detecting them, or if many of them are nonfunctional or scams. One of these days, when I have a job and some money, I kinda want to hire a bunch of them to create articles on random things and see what happens. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's quite interesting to scroll down to their "testimonials" and try looking up the "articles" using the name of those professing satisfaction with their own Wikipedia articles. Surprise! Can't find articles published under the names used in the "testimonials." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

And they say We only accept orders that follow Wikipedia Notability requirements, so you won't waste your money only to discover that you aren't qualified at the end. And, if you don't meet the requirements but still want a Wikipedia page, we're happy to help! We provide a variety of packages to meet your specific requirements. What? We only write if it's notable, but if not, we'll do something anyway? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Was it Groucho Marx who said “These are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others.”? Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That means they also add coverage to their spammy blogs and crowdsourced "news" websites. It's a common service by experienced UPE companies: they create both the references and the article. MarioGom (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Are any of those articles previously-existing and now-deleted? Or are they just whole-cloth fakes? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Companies unknown if blocked? But yes, by now most paid editing outfits like this have been blocked ten times over, even if we don't know exactly who they are, and operate purely as scams. They know they're very unlikely to get an article to stick, so they just create a draft or a new page with a sockpuppet and make sure they get paid before it's deleted. One we know of even has a parallel wiki running. Their 'portfolios' are made up. But sadly people do fall for it and lose their money, usually because they had no idea paying for a Wikipedia article wasn't allowed. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That website is a textbook example of marketing speak. They say absolutely nothing, but they do it with a smile and a good vibe and a professional appearance. There is no useful, concrete, verifiable data of any kind on their clients, pricing, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of the 'Wiki editor for hire' sites are one-man operations. It's very easy on the Internet to make yourself look like a large, professional, responsible company. Two 'proper' job market sites have made their owner(s) into multi-millionaires for writing the code that makes those sites run automatically with very little human intervention, and charging outrageous fees to both those offering their services and their clients. The WMF had dialogues with the owners, but even if those touting their services don't use the word 'Wiki' there are workarounds which the site's AI doesn't catch. There is (or was) even an e-book for sale on the lines of: How to get get lots of clients through your listing on xxxxx.com. It's time the WMF had another blitz on these people (or person) like the site Atsme mentioned. Has anyone thought to have a look at the Wiki articles of their so called testimonials, or even calling the 'company'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've checked a couple and didn't find anything under their names. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They are under sanctions by the USPTO in the US [1] and investigated by the Federal Investigation Agency (Pakistan) [2]. The WMF has no chance at "dialogue". MarioGom (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The cited company is WP:ABTACH (AKA WikiProfessionals AKA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook), and they are community-banned. From their behavior, I would say that nowadays they charge their clients for drafts. They don't bother to submit them to AFC, and most of the time they don't move them to mainspace. Most of their clients are not notable, and rarely pass NPP if moved to mainspace. So... while they are a pain in the ass, I don't think they are a big problem for NPP (compared to other UPE companies). MarioGom (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, don't bother with testimonials. They are all fake. MarioGom (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol § Suggested tweaks to the new 1 hour rule

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol § Suggested tweaks to the new 1 hour rule. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Roads

Okay, after a short hiatus, this is going to become an issue again. Back in September, several articles were created with large swaths of uncited material. The redirect route was attempted, and reverted, so the uncited material was removed, which created a bit of a tempest in a teacup. You can see the relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 9#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. An interesting aspect of that discussion was the pertinence of WP:MAPCITE, however, in the "Original research" section of that essay, it clearly states, "When describing the route of a waterway, mountain range, road, railroad, etc., a single map should not be used the sole source used to provide the description." Not to mention the fact that MAPCITE is an essay, not a policy. In contrast, WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which is policy, states, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Before I am accused of being a "bull in a china shop" again by several admins, would like to hear input on them. Recent articles where a single link to Google Maps is being used as the sole source to establish notability, as well as providing the route description has cropped up again at M41 (Durban), M1 (Durban), and M25 (Durban). In addition, I looked at one of the older articles, A404 road, where the route material was re-added, again citing only Google Maps, which contains no route description. Thoughts would be appreciated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted those two articles back to the redirect. A single google map ref is insufficient as a reference for a mainspace article. Its junk of the lowest level. Its nothing that can't be found quickly on another site, so its basically a copy and paste exercise. Lowest common denomintor stuff. scope_creep^Talk 13:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've done the same with M25 (Durban), for the same reasons. Storchy (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've sent that M1 (Durban) article to Afd to try and get a redirect. The roads guys not interested in referencing which is completly outside consensus, reverted on it multiple times. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 (Durban) scope_creep^Talk 19:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I hesitate in commenting here, but since all admins are new page patrol reviewers, I should feel welcome in doing so. And in fact, most of the "roads guys not interested in referencing" and the people you were reverting are new page patrol reviewers or admins. Why do you think that is? And would not the logical conclusion to "roads guys not interested in referencing" having these tools be to approach the venues that can remove those rights?

The policies do not unambiguously say what you are interpreting them to mean. I will venture to say that most of the "roads guys not interested in referencing" are happy to engage in a civil discussion that is not condescending or authoritarian as to why we see the core Wikipedia policies the way we do. I will say that we all want articles that are properly sourced and referenced, but I do not think revert wars that escalate and lead to blocks and ArbCom cases are the way to go about it. And I will say that the message we are getting from NPP (and admittedly others) is that NPP wants to see the 30,000 road articles burn. Keep in mind that your actions are actively alienating the only people who have the interest in writing good and properly sourced road articles. Unless your goal is to see the 30,000 road articles burn after all, in which case I wasted my time coming here. --Rschen7754 05:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be expecting a get-out clause. It is not authoritarian to expect to see a road article to be referenced like any other article. What about this dud article, M41 (Durban), which you removed the prod on. I expect the editor who wrote the article to reference it like everybody else. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I for one, certainly do not want to see 30,000 (if that number is accurate) articles burn. I do want to see every article on the project follow WP policies and guidelines. The reticence of the Roads project to accept WP policy is disturbing, to say the least. And the encouraging of the continued addition of OR is even more so. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

...most of the "roads guys not interested in referencing" and the people you were reverting are new page patrol reviewers or admins. - So, regular editors that should be held to the same, if not higher standards, as everybody else? I don't see the relevance in mentioning editors' permissions outside of there being higher expectations for these users. Articles need to be properly sourced and independently notable regardless of who works on them.

None of us want to see thousands of articles burned, so please assume good faith. I find the whole discussion around roads to be incredibly hostile in a way that dissuades participation from those who prefer to avoid drama. There are clearly passionate people on both sides and I think some editors have been unfairly targeted because of it. I followed the few discussions about this issue, and people can argue til they're blue in the face, but it's clear the conversation has hit a standstill. Is there a proposed policy change, a RfC that could be started, a thread on dispute resolution, etc.? It's clear that this will continue to be an issue, so what do you suggest to move forward @Rschen7754? I think that's what we're all interested in, moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with josh there. I've avoided the discussion due to the rancor. And moving forward...we are talking about roads, after all! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: It should be a cause for reflection, such as "Here is a good-faith editor who is obviously trusted by the community to some level and who is not seeing the same thing that I am seeing. Is there something I am missing"? --Rschen7754 03:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with Josh that it feels like what's needed here is an RfC. I would encourage editors who write road's articles and those who review them to get together to hopefully find a mutually agreeable question and then invite the broader community to weigh in on how to interpret the policies and guidelines around this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is going to take several RFCs to get back on track at this point. I've tried to share my opinion but also be fair-minded with this summary - of both the issues and their implications on articles:

• Are there certain classes of roads that are inherently notable? Currently the list is national, state (and purposefully pushing lower classes to GNG) - however not every country works that way (notably, the United Kingdom, where the decision was that B roads were not notable, among other things). The word "typically" in the section of WP:GEOLAND sucks - what does it mean? I have generally read it to mean that such highways are notable unless there is a reason to make an exception (very short roads, second-class roads). Others have read it to devalue the entire sentence.

• And before the concept of inherent notability is dismissed so easily - is this leading to systemic bias? In California every state highway could pass GNG on newspaper articles alone. In less developed countries (Global South) digital newspaper archives are harder to come by and the government might not even have a transportation website. There is also often a language barrier - there are literally thousands of road articles on German, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese Wikipedias that do not exist here, do some digging at d:WD:HWY to see what I mean. Are non-English speaking countries being disenfranchised?
• Is there an argument to be made on the importance to society? There are plenty of other subject articles that are arguably less notable to society that are still here and not facing this amount of scrutiny.
• Are there classes of roads that are okay to be mentioned in a list but nowhere else? Some US states go a bit overboard on numbering state highways and this has been a compromise between including every member of a class versus having an article that will never be more than 2 paragraphs long.

• Are maps primary sources? Policy never says they are, and in fact this discussion explicitly removed "maps" from the list of primary sources.
• Are maps from the government department of transportation more or less reliable?
• Is it okay to have an article that only cites maps? A GA? A FA?
• Government documents are primary sources, but what can they be used for? Citing the legal definition of a route? Calculating mileages? What are the bounds of WP:CALC?
• Is reading a map "original research"? Policy is silent on this point and only uses vague terms like "analysis" that have been interpreted subjectively and I suspect there is a generational gap here as well. Plot summaries are less objective than this. Are certain facts more acceptable than others? Reading symbols is one thing, reading from a satellite layer is another (and there is dispute even among road editors here).
• Is Google Maps less reliable than other (printed) maps? The recent RS/N discussion didn't have a consensus in any direction. [3] If the answer is no, this would mean a significant lag in updating articles after roads change.
• What are the parameters of acceptable use of maps in the history section? Some have raised WP:SYNTH concerns, however IMO there are ways to say that in X year, a road existed that aren't OR. Newspaper articles are preferable, however there are many situations where entire years of newspaper archives are missing.

• And if the answer to all the map questions is no, then that means that the entire "Route" section for a lot of articles has to be deleted, even for articles that unambiguously meet GNG because of the (sometimes hundreds) of newspaper articles in the History section. Most people want to read about how the road is today, and a history-only section would fail the "comprehensive" part of WP:WIAFA. If we can't use maps to tell them about that, then what?

• WP:BURDEN - following this policy to the letter means that we should write a bot and code it to delete every unsourced statement on this site. That seems irresponsible to me. And yet, the section starting with "Whether and how quickly material should be..." is utterly unenforceable and gameable with WP:POINT-style actions.

• I will also point out that many BURDEN deletions have been made on the premise that maps are not reliable sources, when there is no consensus to that effect - bringing into question the use of BURDEN to justify the revert as one that basically seals the revert war shut.

• WP:BEFORE - some of the aforementioned AFDs like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 (Durban) one appear to have been knee-jerk reactions. Should it be required to look for sources before nomination?
• No article (road or non-road) is going to be perfect and most inevitably fall short of Wikipedia standards in some way. Then what? Delete? Tag? And the sheer number of articles means that we can't catch everything, and even some GAs get passed that we have no control over because anyone (road or non-road) can review a GA. And how do we promote proper editing without chasing editors away? In almost all the road editors I welcomed recently their page was littered with template after template
• Is it within the scope of NPP to patrol edits of established editors? The business where this article was repeatedly marked reviewed and unreviewed seems wrong, if it was with the admin tools it would be called wheel warring. IMO once an article is marked reviewed it should leave NPP and be handled through normal processes.
• The proposed mass deletion RFC is also applicable here. And there are probably other questions I have missed.

I will also just ask this and put things in perspective - if you're going to make accusations of editors (real people), at least source them as well as you are asking of our articles (which are about inanimate objects). After all, this is policy. Dozens of editors have spent collective centuries working on these articles, and have worked hard to bring them up to Wikipedia standards as they understood them, and also as GA and FA reviewers and delegates have also understood them (yes, even in 2022). Many articles have appeared on the Main Page and gathered tens of thousands of views. Many of these changes would be significant shifts to the model of article writing, and some would be unsustainable and push editors off the site if put into practice. So yes, things are tense on our side and have been for the last few months. I hope you can understand why. --Rschen7754 03:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Rschen, while I can understand why you're thinking there is a roads side and an NPP side (and would expect many reading this to have slotted themselves into one or the other of those sides), I think disputes where we try to think of ourselves as all on the side of producing a high quality encyclopedia that serves our readers helps; at minimum it lowers the temperature on the dispute.

More substantively, I appreciate you so clearly laying out the many questions on your mind and no doubt on the minds of other editors as well. I agree with you that some elements are part of the mass deletion RfC so they are best discussed there when it is launched. Others were part of the closed mass creation RfC which means that there is probably not a Wikipedia consensus to be had on them given how that one closed. Taking those questions out I see some common themes around sourcing expectations and verifiability that feel like they could be honed into a productive RfC question which could then provide some guidance for how to answer other questions (or at least give a baseline answer for future RfCs if needed). Does that make sense to you? To others? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned that this is not one side against the other, it's important that it not be approached as such. A lurker with the perfect answer may be uninterested in getting involved if they feel they're picking a side.

Thank you for taking the time to write this out Rschen. You're asking a lot of good thought provoking questions that I think will help some to understand where you're coming from. While I myself don't have the answer, I do see where both sides are coming from. I agree with Barkeep that there are common themes that can help guide the path and I think those discussions need to be had. I think it needs to be settled once and for all with forward progress being the ultimate goal, regardless of what the ultimate result is. Until then we're stuck in a hostile grey area, which nobody wants to be a part of. I hope that we can take a few days to digest Rschen's questions and perhaps a draft of an RfC can be worked on, as a group. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and I'd like to echo the thanks that others above have already stated. I do think there are two broad issues here: 1 - are maps primary sources? and 2 - is creating route descriptions from looking at a map counted as an editor "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material"? If maps are primary sources, does that imperil existing articles, sending them to deletion? I think that would be a good RFC to put forth, although I do not know how to word it properly. The second question, is more problematic, imho, and is worsened if maps are indeed deemed secondary sources. For in that same snippet I quoted from OR, ""Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so," it clearly states that you would need to refer to the secondary source which provides the route description, which is not what happens when editors base their route descriptions on a map. Regardless, I think that these two issues need to be split. BTW, I love your comparison of route descriptions to plot summaries. That's an extremely valid point. I've written a few film articles, but have never created a plot summary wholly from my mind. Instead I use existing plot summaries in secondary sources. However, due to the guidelines in the Film MOS, I have never footnoted them. I would need to go back through all those articles and add the footnotes. Luckily, my sources are all already in the ref section, so while tedious and time-consuming, it could be done rather easily. Finally, I've begun a rudimentary draft of a potential RfC regarding the second question, which can be found at User:Onel5969/rfc draft. Might I suggest that any further comments regarding this question be taken to that talk page? Hopefully, over the next week or so, we can come up with a decent question which is simple enough to put to the entire community, yet represents all positions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as the plot summaries - from my limited knowledge, said secondary sources are not readily available for a lot of TV shows and movies created before the Internet made them more available and sites like AV Club popped up. So if watching a movie and writing down what happens suddenly becomes OR, now you've got a huge problem and that has big implications for even slightly lesser known TV shows and movies created before the mid-2000s. That's the kind of shift we are talking about here. (And to be honest, sometimes I need Wikipedia to understand what happened in movies because the symbolism is sometimes lost on me - so the level of "analysis" that goes on here is at least as much as, if not more than, reading a map). --Rschen7754 18:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but many times where a written plot summary is available outside of wikipedia it is on a crowdsourced site that cannot be used per WP:SPS, or is published in a media company that has a promotional interest in the movie (or book or TV show or whatever) and therefore runs afoul of WP:N. Dave (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple questions involved here (notability and a few wp:ver/wp:nor areas and I think that an RFC that tackles this whole thing at once would die under it's own weight). It should be dividend up for discussion. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The primary source for any published road map is the officially approved detailed design and construction documents. A published map, Google or otherwise, is the result of analysis and interpretation of the primary source, and therefore a valid secondary source for Wikipedia articles. Downsize43 (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As I will be incommunicado for the next two weeks I would request that my opinion as expressed above be take into account in any RFC process. Downsize43 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Most maps are, as a matter of fact, not primary sources. There are legitimate policy and guideline issues for WP on how we should use maps as sources but we should not be sidetracked into declaring or thinking (wrongly) that maps are primary. Very few are, Thincat (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it stuns me to listen to an argument that maps are primary sources, they go through a similar creation and editorial process as any other published work. The GIS database or satellite photos that were used to create the map would be the primary source, then drafters curate those databases and photos and draft a map, which is then subject to editorial review. How is that a primary source? Dave (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Applicable projects and articles

The above mentioned complaint with road articles applies to MUCH more than just roads. In the event of a future RFC I'd ideally like to have a list of other article types and Wikiprojects that would be affected ready, so they can be notified as appropriate. Feel free to add to this list:

Articles that rely on maps as sources

• Political entities (cities, townships, districts, countries, etc.) - maps are often used to source relative location of a city to a more well known location, elevation, etc.
• Geography and geographical features (mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.)
• Linear features (roads, rivers, rail lines, pipelines, etc.)
• Military battles
• Celestial objects (stars, planets, etc.)
• Navigation features (lines of latitude, survey markers, signs etc.)

Articles where Wikipedians often must rely on maps or the subject itself, or some other non-traditional means for a summary of the topic

(i.e. they have a lot written about them outside of Wikipedia, however may not have objective summaries in secondary, written sources)

• Linear Features (roads, rivers, pipelines, rail lines, etc.)
• Works of art (poems, paintings etc.)
• Plot summaries (Books, Movies, TV Shows, etc.)
• Fictional or mythical characters
• People (who are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article but are not the subject of a biographical work) - Obviously this is a special case with its own policies, however, may still be relevant.
• Games - (video and others)
• Legal cases (A legal brief and/or ruling obviously contains a summary, but would those be considered a primary source and/or a SPS?)

Just trying to help Dave (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, there are 32,000 uses of {{Cite map}} [4]. I think someone will have to sit down and go through that list. --Rschen7754 19:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

32,000 is a severe undercount of the number of articles potentially affected. Virtually every article about a political or geographical item gives a relative location to another political or geographical location. That can be [town of 300 people] is located near x to Earth is located in between Venus and Mars. While most of the time statements like this are not explicitly cited to a map, the origin of the statement is using the same mapreading techniques as are being challenged here. I'd say the true number of articles affected by a policy about using maps as sources affects hundreds of thousands of articles. Dave (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really because many statements "X is some distance from Y" are explicitly stated in a textual reliable source, which eliminates any concern about original research and often due weight. Whenever I've included such statements in articles, for example on Nazi concentration camps, it's because a source says so explicitly.

I've written legal articles without excessive reliance on primary source citing, such as the FA Greek case.

IMO all articles need to be based on secondary sources, regardless of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 18:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: IMO all articles need to be based on secondary sources, regardless of the topic. Let's look at 2022 St Helier explosion, currently linked from ITN on the Main Page. News articles contemporaneous to an event are considered primary sources by historians. There's also a tweet cited, which is a primary source. Thus, all 25 footnotes in that article are primary sources. Based on actual practices in writing articles, we rely on primary sourcing all the time. Many people have a different concept of the distinctions between primary and secondary source classifications, but strictly speaking, that concept would not be correct. Imzadi 1979 → 19:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, I am obviously referring to the official Wikipedia meaning of "primary source", as found in the NOR policy. (Although I agree that the overuse of news sources is an issue for some topics). (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And where in said policy does it say that maps are primary sources? Above I pointed to a 2008 discussion that said they were not, and the current text does not say that they are. --Rschen7754 04:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." So our definition matches that of historians. Yup, that covers the vast majority of news coverage of events used in articles on events, which means that the example article I mentioned above is based primarily on primary sources, yet we do that all the time in contravention of the policy statement "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." (boldface omitted from original)

This all assumes that we're considering maps primary sources, and yet we haven't classified them as such. Imzadi 1979 → 05:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of primary and secondary sources matches (and I believe originally comes from) historians' definition when it comes to historical events. You have to adapt the definition when applying it to other topics and our policies reflect that. For example, in medical and science articles (WP:MEDRS, WP:SCIRS, WP:FRINGE), a primary source is one that present original results and a secondary source is e.g. a systematic review. Or in biographies (WP:BLP, WP:NBIO), a primary source is e.g. a birth certificate and a secondary source is a biography. It sounds like making a similar clarification of what is a primary or secondary source in the context of geography articles could be valuable.

From my own perspective as someone who spends a good chunk of my day job making maps and teaching cartography, the answer to the question of whether a map is a primary source is a resounding it depends. When I go out into the field to record the locations of undiscovered archaeological sites and present the results as a map, that's a primary source. When I look through the literature to produce a map of all sites in the Southern Levant associated with the Natufian culture, that's a secondary source. Like with a written source, it's a question of whether the author is reporting a direct observation of the world, or synthesizing and interpreting the observations of others, not what medium they choose to work in. Extending that logic to roads, a straightforward topographic map of the streets in an area (especially something like Google Maps, which is largely machine-generated) is probably a primary source, but a thematic map of e.g. "major highways of the United States" could be a solid secondary source. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I would agree with you about Google Maps (at least, outside the satellite layer) - but anyway, this is where the current pre-RFC discussion is stalled. There is a question about whether reading a map is OR, but then what comes next after that? Some people think that all maps are primary, but having a RFC about "are all maps primary or secondary" is the wrong question for the reasons Joe states. So do we have the awkward question "Can a map be a secondary source?" Or have individual (probably RFC) discussions on RS/N about each potential map? Or...?

And quite frankly, a lot of newspaper sourcing inside and outside the roads topic area (the COVID-19 in X articles come to mind) is primary. If (collectively) you are going to enforce the primary/secondary distinction in the roads topic area, then please do it across the site consistently and fairly. This really shouldn't matter, however people are 1) questioning WP:GEOROAD which says that state/provincial highways are "typically" notable and then 2) saying that maps as alleged primary sources can't be used to meet GNG, and also 3) using the primary sources/map reading is OR argument to invoke BURDEN. --Rschen7754 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Aliens (film), an FA and the TFA from 2 days ago, has a 5 paragraph "Plot summary" section (which is roughly the same thing as a "Route description" for a roads article) that is completely unsourced (with the exception of a single footnote). This is fairly common with articles about movies and other works of fiction. Not dinging the article, I understand the challenge in finding a neutral, reliable source for a plot summary of a movie. But this illustrates two points: 1- apparently despite the claim of "all articles should be sourced to secondary sources", Wikipedia does recognize that some sets of articles have unique challenges and some things should be handled on case-by-case basis. 2-I'd argue that a roads article which uses maps as sources for a route description is infinitely more verifiable than a movie article with a completely unsourced plot description.Dave (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Many articles use {{cite web}} for a map reference, and others simply say "Google maps", "Google", "Queensland Globe" etc. Downsize43 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Also all these numbers don't account for the myriad of simple links or non-CS1 citations. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Advice requested on large block of articles

The backstory on this is on about 12 different pages and I'll give a few sentence overview. Several months ago I tackled NPP'ing a block of about 200 new articles created by one user. The creator agreed for me to move them to draft space, be mentored and to let me decide what to do with the articles. Communication is a bit difficult due to differences in native lanuages. About half were "Development authority" articles which I converted into re-directs.....wp:notability made that decision simple. The other half are "Municipal corporation" articles for those municipal corporations in various larger cities in India. "Municipal corporation" the term for the government of a city in India. Typically one of these articles consists of 3/4 copied generic information about Municipal corporations in India and the other 1/4 is info about that particular municipal corporation in that particular city, with some references for that unique material. The references aren't GNG type, but the government of a large city in India is certain to have GNG sources out there. IMO the most ideal solution would be to merge the unique material into the corresponding city article and convert to a redirect. But per the recent conversation just above and below User talk:North8000#Arbitrary break 2 I don't think that that is going to happen. Based on what they said just below that marker, I'm thinking of plan B which is moving them to article space and marking them as reviewed. GNG sources undoubtedly exist (even if not in the article) There is typically some unique material and unique sourcing in each article so even with the generic stuff ignored, you still have a stub article which could be expanded, improved, have the generic material removed, or merged later. What do you think of my "Plan B"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

For me the issue with this editor’s approach is that they always adopt this cookie-cutter method and you quickly end up with identikit articles which are largely generic with a few key words changed. I didn’t think that is an acceptable way of creating articles. How many municipal corporations are there in India? If these articles are returned to mainspace and reviewed the editor will kick off another spree and we will have hundreds more of them before we know where we are. Your proposal to merge and redirect each one is the best solution. If the creator or anyone else wants to write a proper article, the redirect can be removed, but in my view it should not be removed until that is done. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree with everything @Mccapra said. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I agree 100% with Mccapra.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mccapra:, @Rsjaffe:, @Onel5969: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know, that editor has begun moving them to mainspace. Since none of them have any in-depth coverage, I've redirected them to the cities' pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I decided to bow out on those.North8000 (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see the creator has just moved another bunch of these out of draft and back into the queue. They look unchanged from when they were draftified for being essentially the same article republished multiple times with a few words and a couple of refs changed. I’m going to recuse myself from dealing with them. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

They've been adding them in batches almost every day. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh joy. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• This issue sounds similar to that of an English editor who is determined to make a stub for every civil parish in England although the parish is sufficiently mentioned in the village article of the same name and which is already in the cat Civil parishes in England. He was placed on a quota restriction of creating such articles that would then still be subject to the scrutiny of NPP for relevance. Perhaps the opinion of a seasoned NPP admin should be called upon... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sometimes it feels like attempting to bail out a sinking boat with a sieve. I don't know how many articles about local elections with total vote counts below 20,000 exist, but if you attempt to argue for improvement, they just wear you down. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

مرحبآ

How are you doing about Ali Al-Mahmoudi article? I will modify and fix it.Dinaahmed2 (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Okay, this is going to sound stupid, but where does one go to start a discussion on whether or not a source is reliable. A Nigerian source, This Day looks reliable when perusing their editorial policy, but we all know that there are Indian sources which look reliable, but are not, or at least not in certain areas. This Day is not listed at either WP:NPPRS or WP:RSP, so I'd like to get consensus on this. Also, since I do a fair bit of reviewing, I'd like to start discussions on sources I come across which aren't listed. I looked at WP:RS, and where to go to start a discussion is not readily apparent, and I've never done it before. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969, WP:RSN would be the place. Doesn't have to be a RfC and shouldn't need to be unless there's significant resistance. Mostly just ask is this reliable and see what community thinks. Unless the source is used frequently, it will not be added to WP:RSP and that does require a RfC. Slywriter (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969, This Day is on the list of "Generally reliable sources for Nigeria-related information" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources#Sources. — Archer1234 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll add it to NPPRS. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IMO "RS" per policies and guidelines does not define actual reliability and ignores context. IMO WP:RSN does a pretty good job regarding actual reliability, and in context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer of the Year - 2022

Please join me in congratulating Onel5969 for winning the cup again, for 2022.

The top 10 reviewers of articles and redirects in 2022 were:

Articles

Rank	Username	Article reviews
1	Onel5969 (talk)	28302
2	JTtheOG (talk)	7029
3	Mccapra (talk)	4090
4	Styyx (talk)	3950
5	John B123 (talk)	3571
6	Joseywales1961 (talk)	3133
7	Hughesdarren (talk)	3024
8	Rosguill (talk)	2998
9	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	2961
10	WaddlesJP13 (talk)	2734

Redirects

Rank	Username	Redirect reviews
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	184013
2	Rosguill (talk)	49294
3	Hey man im josh (talk)	21379
4	MB (talk)	6701
5	Onel5969 (talk)	5607
6	Dr vulpes (talk)	2426
7	Lithopsian (talk)	2081
8	Ozzie10aaaa (talk)	2035
9	IAmChaos (talk)	1845
10	Iseult (talk)	1831

Thank you all for your service. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello New pages patrol,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Mass stub articles

A pretty spotty editor, User:The Anonymous Earthling, has recently created a bunch of stub articles regarding villages in India, e.g. Khriezephe. On the surface they look like they pass GEOLAND. However, be aware that they are not being careful about the facts in the articles. There are a whole slew of them which put the villages in the wrong district (they are confusing the subdivision (tehsil) with the district, according to the single source). This is a prime example of why I do not like marking these type of stubs as reviewed. With a single stub (especially like the source used in these articles, which is not a link to the actual census data, but a link to a third-party site which publishes that data), who knows what is true. I draftified a bunch of them, letting them know to check the factual accuracy, but they simply moved them back to mainspace. Regardless, thought I'd give folks a heads up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)