Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tutorial Noticeboard School Curation Help (video) Page feed R&D Templates Reviewers

The New pages patrol noticeboard or NPP/N exists to provide a simple means for editors to request review of and provide feedback on the performance of an individual new page patroller. Unlike many other forms of dispute resolution, providing a notification of the discussion on the patroller's user talk page is not required.

How to list a new request[edit]

  • Be civil, as is expected of everyone who edits Wikipedia.
  • Start a new section at the bottom of this page, with the title matching the user name of the patroller.
  • Provide your question or comment, why you are requesting review and/or feedback, and any other information that may be relevant to the person reviewing your post.
  • Sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~

Providing a NPP review[edit]

  • Be civil.
  • Use plain language. Do not assume that the person requesting the review is familiar with Wikipedia's lexicon.
  • Review the relevant article(s) history; the requesting editor's contributions and talk page history; and the reviewer's page curation log, talk page, and contributions.
  • Provide a brief (2-3 sentence) analysis of the reviewer's actions. If any follow-up is performed elsewhere, provide a link or diff for reference.
  • Avoid long, drawn out threads, instead sticking to a terse question/answer format. If request already has an answer, consider not chiming in.

Anyone except the original page patroller may provide a NPP review. However, reviews are most likely to be useful if they are performed by users with a good understanding of patrolling new pages and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you receive feedback from another editor that your review of an issue listed here was not adequate, please consider whether it is a good idea for you to continue performing reviews.

Common NPP outcomes[edit]

Note - please update these outcomes as conjecture yields to experience.

  • Explain the issues - if the patroller's actions appear to have been correct, explain why each action, and particularly each tag, was performed on or added to the article.
  • Provide feedback to the patroller - for minor issues, a simple talkback notice on the patroller's talk page linking to the review may suffice. For repeated or widespread violations, a sterner warning or formal warning template may be warranted.
  • Escalate the issue - if the patroller's actions are particularly problematic or ongoing, escalation to more formal means of dispute resolution may be necessary.
  • Remove the request - NPP review requests should be removed if they are clearly abusive. Closed good-faith requests will be archived after a period of time.

New page patrol review requests[edit]


Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has had ongoing problems correctly identifying candidates for speedy deletion. Multiple editors have attempted to address the issue with them on their talk page:

At one point the user agreed to stop with the new page patrols [8] but has broken their word and kept on doing them. At other times, their response has just been to blank the notification.

Most recently, they nominated a species article for A1 and A7, in clear violation of the guidelines for both. This editor is clearly acting in good faith, but they appear to lack the experience to be making speedy deletion nominations. Since they have not demonstrated a willingness to stop voluntarily, this requires community action in my opinion. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at their nominations (possibly an admin so they can review the deleted nominations as well) to see if they agree that a formal topic ban from CSD nominations is the best way to prevent further disruption. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I think this is a misunderstanding. I guess I'll start with the species article that you were mentioning. It was clearly an A1 when I glanced at it. When it was not previously redirected by an admin, it only had the body of Small-Scaled Lizard. I was perplexed, so when I Googled it with quotes and what not, as to find the number of search results with purely that within it, [got a whopping 8 results.] The 'lizard' portion of it, and the shortness of the length did not tell me that it was anything more, so I sought to nominate for no context. Surely you can see my reasoning for doing so, as the article had but three words in it (besides the infobox) and even later, the reviewing administrator redirected it:
  • Data-in-transit. I will not contest this one, as it was one month ago (and I would consider this one to be stale) but it was when I thought A7 applied to everything that didn't have a display of significance. I now know this not to be the case, and have taken that to heart. This will remain as just a sole reminder of that for me.
  • Esviet. Again, this was when I did not know the more obscure workings of speedy deletion. Over one month old. If you go to the page, you will see that it's been deleted by a reviewing administrator under a different speedy deletion criteria. I now know this criteria does not apply to content not in English, and have tagged multiple articles under the {{not english}} template, no longer proposing them for deletion. I acknowledge that this was one again of my more 'learning' mistakes.
  • Nightwalkin' Again, another learning mistake. I sought to nominate it for an A9, but I was more proficient at nominating articles for an A7. but I thought that it did not assert significance, nor was I aware at that time that there was a notability standard for musicians and bands, which this did clearly have. "Into My Secret" was released as the lead single, peaking at No. 9 on the Hot Dance US charts, as well as Pre-production for Nightwalkin' began in early 1986[2] after Alisha's initial success on the club charts.
  • Demi Ucok: A mistake of mine for an A7. I did not realize that A7 did not apply to films. If you look at the article, it's but 6 words. You can clearly see why I'd nominate it for an A7, as if it was not a film, it would've qualified. However, I now know that creative works are exempt. I've actually afd'd a recent film because I did not feel it had any notability, and it was deleted under the afd. (after I recently PROD'd it and that was contested. Knew I couldn't replace it so Afd'd.) Here that is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Price_of_Democracy
  • International Business Project has been speedily deleted under A1 and A7, ironically enough. I'm not sure the circumstances of what I tagged it as, but that is ironically true in this situation.
  • 100_Computing_Lessons I thought was an advertisement for the book series (and if you go to the article now, you can see it still is somewhat advertisement-ey.) 100_Computing_Lessons The A7 category was wrong, but I believe the G11 category was fitting at the time.
  • Live_at_the_royal_theatre At the point, I saw the user was blocked (using a special userscript which will slash out their name if they're blocked) and saw there was a speedy deletion criteria for it. I believed it was an A7 because from the title, it looked like the name of a show at a theatre, which would qualify it as an organized event, but didn't state why it was significant. The name of it was an album, and it was only in the small text in the infobox that said this.
  • Whittl Again, another obscure thing, that any indicator of significance, even as small as this, is enough to avoid an A7. The startup is backed by Origin Venture[2], OCA Ventures[3], and Amicus Capital.[4] that means it qualifies past an A7.
  • Saintseneca I think was another misinterpreted nomination on my part of A7, because of the claim of significance Saintseneca’s latest album Dark Arc was released in April 2014 through ANTI- Records.[3]
  • The funny thing about having to stop new page patrolling is that I wanted to. I did. However, on FreeRangeFrog's talk page, he told me to continue to do it, but stick to the policies by the word. So that's what started me back into it. I didn't 'break' any promise, as I never made any specific promise to anyone. I said 'for awhile' and that could mean anything. <- This is where he told me to continue, so I did.
  • I did not blank the notice, I immediately archived it. It's in here: The reason why I blanked it is that I had a lot of things happen that week, and the notice on my talk page by you that you were going to pursue a topic ban on me was stressing me out. Here's your exact wording Please take this as a warning - continuing this behavior will result in my pursuing a topic ban to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. I see that you did good on your threat.
  • Also, I have been deferring in most cases to proposed deletions and tags, per your suggestion. You can view my PROD log here: | You can also see that the articles that I've nominated for afd have been deleted, and if an admin (by some basis of this non binding dispute resolution) manages to go through my deleted contributions, I bet you they would see properly speedied articles. I've nominated attack pages, I've nominated hoax pages, I've nominated all kinds of pages that would warrant advertising. I believe that encompasses everything that you were attempting to portray, so please leave an upcoming message. I have made mistakes with new page patrolling, that is true, but pursuing a topic ban for someone who is nominating the majority of the articles they nominate do actually get speedily deleted I think is in bad taste, but understandable, given the context.
I Doubt it Shes Done A Decent amount of good Patrolling and as she wrote before Most of her CSD Nominations Were Deleted. I don't see why a Topic Ban is needed and even i have done a bit of Blunders myself. I think this is a little Extreme In Short. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 00:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

UKIP Calypso[edit]

I have just written this article and I currently hold autopatrolled status but I would like to ask if a NPP can quickly look over this to ensure the page is acceptable and free from any POV please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done much NPP, but I've looked over it and don't see any blatant NPOV violations, just UK politics in all its lunacy. Pathore (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to lack info on the fallout. That was what made it considerably more notable. It only alludes to the withdrawal at the end, tucked away. Happy to chuck in a few facts from the major papers. Rayman60 (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Street parking types Australia[edit]

@Rent A Troop: a proposed deletion can be contested for any reason, including by the page author. Either AfD (if you think it should be deleted) or a merge are possible alternatives. If you encounter a similar situation in the future it might be easiest to simply boldly merge the content into the appropriate parent article, but the AfD path you chose works, too. VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this request but I proposed a deletion(not a speedy deletion) of this page with the following comment/concern "There is a Disabled parking permit page with a section for Australia's disabled parking and another page for Parking space. Maybe some of the information from this new article can be moved to the parking space article for a more generalized worldwide view".

However the author insisted not to delete it and responded with the following quote in the edit summary following removal of the proposed deletion tag "Rules are pretty different for Australia. I have saved whatever completed. Planning to improve further. Please do not delete"

I followed up with the author on his talk page with the following comment "While parking is different in Australia, there are Wikipedia pages which have a worldwide view on parking, Parking space, parking, and Disabled parking permit. The Disabled parking permit page already has an inclusion for disability parking for Australia. I think the information you want to include in this encyclopedia would be better suited on those pages. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015" No response as of yet. Perhaps someone could come in and weigh in on the matter? I think in the future the page would come into use, but there is plenty of space to add its information onto related parking pages --Rent A Troop (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2015 (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.

Pediped Footwear article[edit]

Just read the new Pediped Footwear article. It's a probably notable company and well cited, but written by a copywriter and hopelessly promotional. I've given the editor a COI warning, but should I (or someone else) ask the editor to rewrite and removed promotional material? I don't really have time to do a rewrite and strip back to basic facts right now myself. Blythwood (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


I feel like many editors are violating WP:DONTBITE by deleting new pages in the first 5 minutes. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: yes, it seems like there has been an uptick in this problem lately. It also seems like patrollers have been more resistant to feedback than I had seen before. Not sure what's causing it or even if the trend is real (compared to my perception). Short term solution is to counsel the individual patrollers; the warning template Template:Uw-hasty has been recently updated to help discourage hasty A7 nominations. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: How do you know about that after less than 24 hours of editing? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi @AnomieBOT:, @Vinodtiwari2608:, @ThePlatypusofDoom: I improved then moved draft Blockstream to the mainspace and then Vinodtiwari2608 marked it as reviewed. Then AnomieBOT came by re-added the un-reviewed tag (and didn't leave any message on any talk page that I can see). Now the article is marked as un-reviewed since 09:30, 10 April 2016‎. I recognize that this might be a bot related issue, or maybe user Vinodtiwari2608 was been flagged as a bad actor? (Note, I see nothing on (talk) page). Why else would a bot come by after someone marked a page as read and then re-add the tag? Are there only certain users that are allowed to remove the tag? If this is the case, then I understand it. So I am a little confused what is going on. If this is a bot problem, i wanted to report. Last, I am also wondering if the process of re-adding the un-reviewed tag caused the page to get stuck in some sort of un-reviewed limbo (as normally the review process takes a few hours, and now it is much longer...Maybe it is on a lower page of un-reviewed, somewhat out of the cue) Just wanted to bring these issues to the patrol's attention and maybe you all can evaluate what the issue/issues are. Thank you! 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talkcontribs)

@Jtbobwaysf: AnomieBOT did not add the template; it only dated it. You added the template in this edit. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: From the timestamps on my watchlist it appears that AnomieBOT dated the template after Vinodtiwari2608 had removed it. Am I incorrect? Thank! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Vinodtiwari2608 has never edited the article, so he did not remove it. He marked it reviewed in the log. — JJMC89(T·C) 17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, clarified now. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Is Bernard Esser notable? He held a very minor office, and doesn't seem to meet requirements. Any thoughts? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, but this is not the right place to post such a question. The purpose of this noticeboard is to provide "a means to request an informal review of a new page patroller by an uninvolved third party." Assuming that you have done WP:BEFORE, the best place to examine notability would be WP:AfD.- MrX 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

New page merge feedback requested[edit]

This new page is held-up at DYK due to an open merge question. Some input, pro- or con-, would be appreciated for benefit of an expeditious resolution. LavaBaron (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Permission disappeared[edit]

Hi, My New Page Patroller permission disappeared without any announcement, or explanation as to why. Any ideas? scope_creep (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scope creep: You will need to apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. There were a couple of widely publicized RfCs about this: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Why did it just disappear without any announcement, email or alert, when it happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talkcontribs) 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Previously, marking a new page as patrolled didn't require any user rights. It was bundled in with the autoconfirmed package, which you automatically receive after 10 edits and 4 days on-site. There were watchlist notices about the RfCs linked above when they were ongoing and they were well-advertised, but perhaps you missed those. ~ Rob13Talk 08:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)