Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Clarification and guidance for draftification[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
We seem finished here. Taken to Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#policy_for_Draftification SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The practice of unilateral draftification could use clarification and guidance. Note:

This proposal for guidance follows up from discussions at:

I propose, as a draft to be modified/improved, that guidance for draftification should be:

A page in mainspace may be moved to draft if all of the following are true:

(1) Has some merit
(2) Is not good enough
(3) And there is no evidence of active improvement

Expanding on the above:

Has some merit

(1a) eg. The topic is plausibly notable (if not, it should be deleted, CSD#A7 or AfD). Do not draftify junk.

Not good enough

(2a) The page is obviously unready for mainspace. It does not meet WP:STUB.
(2b) The topic does not look so important, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace.
(2c) The topic is not a new topic likely to be of interest to multiple people (e.g. Current affairs).
(2d) The page is a recent creation, by an inexpericed editor. (old pages, and pages by experienced editors deserve an AfD discussion)

And no evidence of active support

(3a) There is no evidence of actively working on it.
(3a) There is no assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history, or on the talk page, or a revert of a previous draftification.

Qualifications and responsibilities of the draftifier. To unilaterally draftify, you should:

(4a) have the New Page Reviewer reviewer right (includes all admins)
(4b) Notify the author (eg as facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js)
(4c) Be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

Advice for the authors of draftified pages:

Authors of draftified pages should try to understand and respond to the reason for draftification, and then use the WP:AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace. The author is encouraged to ask the draftified questions, or to use the {{Help me}} template. However, author has a right to object to draftification, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You obviously put a lot of thought into this, but there are too many steps and rules to remember and interpret. The Wikilawyers will turn this kind of a checklist into a weapon of harassment. The pages that get moved to draft are generally quite new ones that have some major flaw, but where deleting them is too harsh. On the rare occasion I've sent a page to Draft I immediately use the AFCH tool to request a review on behalf of the creator. I may then do the review or leave a comment of explanation and let someone else review. This is a lot friendlier message to the often newer editor then DELETE, tells them where their page went, and how to fix it. Some new editors get an AfD or PROD notice and post on my talk page that the page is already deleted. At Draft we can guide them through fixing the problems. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I closed the RFC you mention as 'no consensus', and I clearly stated that in big block letters at the top of the result box. I said there were too many answers of 'yes', 'no', 'maybe', and so forth, not that those widely differing answers were any kind of result. The RFC was poorly formed, and I suggested a new one. You should modify your statement. Katietalk 12:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is good guidance. It reflects pretty much what I do when patrolling. Perhaps it would helpful to make it clear that it is a guideline to be used with common sense, and not a set of rules. - MrX 12:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Legacypac is cavalier with his processing of drafts, he would do well to be constrained by sensible boundaries. Katie, I think the paraphrase well reflects the discussion and the excellent close as a whole. If you disagree, you may modify my text, but I'd prefer to see you comment on the proposed documentation as to whether it reflects most of the input to that RfC. MrX, thanks, my goal here is to update documentation of accepted good practice. I think the current usual practice by NPRs of draftification is necessary and appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • SmokeyJoe, thanks for your work on this. Following Katie's suggestion for modifying in line with her close ( I think making it clear it was no consensus is a good idea), I think this would work very well as a Wikipedia -space essay on the topic. I wouldn't want to add it to the tutorials since they are already pretty long. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The place for the detailed documentation is probably WP:Drafts. Talk about it here because most draftification is associated with new page patrol. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree as to point 3[edit]

I partly disagree. In particular, I disagree as to point 3, that there must be no active evidence of improvement. The pages that I think should be draftified are pages that are new in the NPP queue, and typically have "holes", such as blank sections (e.g., "Career" is empty). These pages should be draftified, not because there is no active evidence of improvement, but because there is an obvious need for improvement, in that, in their current condition, they could be speedied. Insisting that there be no active evidence of improvement will leave these placeholders in article space for a few hours until a less patient patroller applies A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Something I see missing from my proposal is that draftification should be OK for a page this is immediately speediable. With a separate dot point, such as: "Any page speediable under a CSD#A* criterion may be draftified at the reviewers discretion", would that alter your opinion. My thoughts on (3) is that you shouldn't normally be draftifying something while it is being written. If you continue to disagree, I would withdraw (3), so as to leave the guideline silent on the matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Anything that is eligible for speedy deletion, in the discretion of the reviewer, addresses that. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Not quite anything. Valid A1s, A3s, A11s and perhaps A5s should not be moved to draft space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
As objective as the CSD criteria are, there are still boundary cases. If in doubt, better surely to draftify with the nice automessage than to delete? If some NPRer is repeatedly erring in draftifying things that should have been speedied immediately, I think a brief word would be appropriate. Indecision between speedying and draftifying means it is well away from being approved. I think this is a non-issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
True enough. When i said valid, I meant to imply clearly valid. To move a true empty A1, contextless A3, etc to draft would be poor judgement, but as you say a word could manage that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In response to the initial post: a missing section is not a valid reason to speedy, unless it leaves out the basic claim of significance -- which of course it might do. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Draftifying should not just be an alternative to some of the CSD criteria, incomplete pages often are better draftified even if no speedy deletion criteria applies. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BITE[edit]

If an article was recently created, and the creator might plausibly be in the process of adding some or all of the missing pieces, esp if the creator has been editing in small chunks, then draftification might well be a form of WP:BITE and should be delayed for at least an hour. This might fir with the "active editing" requirement above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like instruction creep, so I don't support the hour timeframe (its longer than any of the accepted grace periods in NPP). I do support the idea that it should be explicitly mentioned not to draftify an article immediately after creation, just like you shouldn't tag an article immediately after creation. At the end of the day, our most experienced and active NPP people actually have very good judgement on things like this. NPP gets a bad rap because of inexperienced users who don't have the right tagging articles for A1 or A3 a minute after creation with Twinkle. I haven't seen much draftification from that crowd, so I don't really think this instruction would help much. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. It is already noted in places that tagging and deletion should not happen within minutes of creation, it doesn't need to be noted everywhere. Dot point four of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers is clear enough, and an excellent place to point people who are a bit bitey. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be noted more places until it stops happening. We won't know if it happens with draftification until that becomes more common, and until more such moves are routinely reviewed. With speedy tags three is at least always a reviewing admin or editor. Perhaps articles draftified should be placed in a tracking cat for possible review? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I asked a closely related question here. The answers are not fully satisfying. I think a log of draftfied pages would be good. Perhaps a draftified articles category would suffice? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
We have the AfC by day cat, which is where most of them go, so that can work. I also think that we're missing the bigger picture here which is that reviewers tend to draftify articles that otherwise would likely get deleted as an alternative to tagging, not as a way to avoid scrutiny which seems to be the implication by people who are wary of the practice. Draftifying serves as a way to actually prevent biting new users and I'm afraid adding excessive instructions and procedures would make people just go the simpler route of CSD/PROD/AfD, since most of these articles qualify under one of those processes. The current proposal does a good job of explaining current best practice without getting into instruction creep. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Moving an article to draft is not WP:BITE as long as message is left on the user's talk page letting them know where to find the moved draft. It's a very reasonable alternative to deletion. Adding arbitrary delays to an already onerous process is not in the best interest of achieving our overall goals, which happen to require a huge amount of volunteer time for maintenance and cleanup. Reviewers should use good judgment and be prepared to justify moving any article to draft if called upon to do so.- MrX 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Moving to draft is actually the least BITEY option. For articles that are obviously incomplete, as a NPP the only other option option would be to tag bomb it (discouraging to new editors but more importantly doesn't really do anything), PROD, XfD, or CSD are far more discouraging than Draftifying. Are you suggesting that we leave obviously deficient articles in the namespace for an hour or more just because of feelings? Guaranteed if you try to implement this someone will PROD or XfD the article in the first 20 min instead. Like it or not many people patrol from the front of the queue, and banning its use in the first hour is tantamount to banning altogether. As for the overall proposal, I disagree with point 3 that there must be no active evidence of improvement: they can continue improving the article in the draft space, unfinished articles don't belong in the main space IMO and it is an easy process to move back when ready. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A large majority of all the articles in mainspace are "deficient". The project-wide for consensus is, and has been for many years, that unless an article is unsalvageable, we leave it there (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy). If we're not willing to do the work ourselves, we tag them for improvement and hope somebody will one day. This is a policy: WP:PERFECTION. So I see at least two more options that are less bitey than booting an article back to draft: 1. improving it yourself; 2. tagging it and leaving it in mainspace.

I find this trend towards draftifying articles that aren't deletion-worthy but aren't "good enough" (a vague and subjective standard) very worrying. Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back; these rest probably no . I see 90% becoming abandoned, which makes this a form of "soft" deletion with none of the strict criteria, discussion or oversight that the community has insisted every other deletion process must have. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Joe, that is all correct. No article is perfect. Everything is mainspace stays unless it may be deleted. Draftification is a good idea for topics that might be good, but if taken to AfD would surely be deleted. Anything speediable under the A* criteria would therefore be a good candidate for draftifying. Similarly, anything that would be surely deleted at AfD, or via PROD, may be better of being draftified. On draftification, there is then an easier opportunity to engage in conversation, such as about minimal sourcing for minimal content to establish that the topic is notable. New Page Reviewers are expected to know the likely outcomes of AfD, and so their personal judgement should be enough. If anyone disagrees, it must be moved back to mainspace, where it will likely be immediately subjected to AfD (does the above draft material on a guideline include this?). "Non-autoconfirmed editors won't be able to move it back"? Well, here I have a related bias, I do not think a non confirmed user should be writing new articles, or drafts. They should instead spend at least ten edits and four days improving existing content, and in particular, introducing mentions of their new topic into new articles. If these mentions don't stick, well there is a pretty strong message to be carefully considered.
Yes, draftification is essentially a slow deletion process for most pages. Conceivably, a random biased editor may decide it is a good idea to draftify every page they don't like. That is why there should be guidelines should be written. That is why a minimum permission should be required, New Page Reviewer being a very suitable permission to be required, and to be risked should the reviewer engage in dubious draftifications and failure to account for them when challenged. But note: without draftification, these pages would be PRODded or tagged for speedy deletion by the NPReviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I strongly share Joe Roe's above concerns. In spite of SmokeyJoe's above suggestions that "draftification is a good idea for topics that might be good, but if taken to AfD would surely be deleted," I have multiple times come upon patrollers who make unilateral draftifcations because they think the page would surely survive AfD, but instead move the page because it's still "not good enough" in their opinion. And their opinions often seem highly arbitrary. I recently had a new article forcibly incubated by a patroller who thought that one reference for a 180-word stub was "not good enough", despite the fact that lack of referencing has never even been a valid criterion for deletion at AfD. A more experienced editor would surely have recognised that such articles are perfectly valid WP:Stubs that deserve to be in article space, so that others may see and help expand it.
I think part of the problem stems from the fact that WP:AFC, which also utilises the draft namespace, has much higher standards than WP:Stub. Many editors appear to be confused and think that that standard also applies to everything in the article space; it does not. This needs to be clarified in any Draftification guideline that may be established. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Paul_012, do you think that draftifiers are prone to imposing meta:Immediatism, unilaterally? In a large degree, that is beyond the scope of this discussion, if happening it will happen regardless of this proposal. You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. There, I am suggesting that anyone may oppose a draftification to force it back to mainspace and optionally subjected to mainspace deletion processes. Much like PROD removals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought I was already commenting there? (Don't know where above it'd be appropriate to insert a new comment.) Allowing anyone to contest draftification would indeed be in line with the current WP:Drafts page, which allows any (autoconfirmed) editor to publish a draft into mainspace. However, it often seems to be the intention of editors who draftify an article to force an AfC upon it, even though going through AfC is supposed to be completely voluntary (unless there are COI issues). This doesn't seem to be directly addressed. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I though this was on a different page, this is the right page. I think all good draftification intentions are to give a page that would be deleted a chance to survive, however, there could well be the perception that the draftifying reviewer is an authoritarian bully, and so as a safety net for such a perception, the author, or any other editor, should have an absolute right object to the draftification. In practice, I think actually bad draftifications are vanishingly rare, but the perception may be real. In the rare circumstances of a complaint, the place to resolve the matter is WP:AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this thread has accrued sufficient input from Reviewers for it to be closed and moved to WP:Drafts. Some editing is needed (speediable pages may ofcourse be draftified, for example), and probably an RfC at WT:Drafts would be the expected thing. Note: To my best efforts to understand previous discussions and NPR practices, these guidelines document current good, common, practice, and do not seek to change practice. The main things being limited would be non NPReviewers unilaterally draftifying old pages. I note multiple few editors are concerned about the possibility of this occurring. Old pages should be draftified va AfD, non-qualified editors may request draftification of others' work at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How is the "tutorial" a tutorial?[edit]

Let me start by saying I'm deeply grateful to the NPP community. I'm honestly baffled how the content on the project page can be considered a tutorial. Here are some examples of comprehensible tutorials:

They are built around step-by-step instructions, examples / a specific case study, and a minimum of jargon. -- The Cunctator (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be titled 'instructions' instead. It doesn't need to be a "tutorial" in the truest sense of the word because NPP isn't geared toward newbies but toward experienced editors that know most of the jargon already. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed Flag - Yet Another Issue[edit]

I have yet another issue with the way that the Reviewed flag is set almost automatically as soon as a reviewer looks at a page. See the history of Todd Lumley. The actions taken by the reviewer, User:Reddogsix, were quite appropriately to add tags to the article. It does not appear that Reddogsix ever did anything that was meant to mark the article as ready to be indexed for Google. However, the article is now indexed by Google. It appears that almost anything short of a deletion tag causes an article to be marked as reviewed and so available to be found by Google. Should I be reporting this somewhere else? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Almost any action using the page curation tool results in the article getting marked as reviewed. Reviewers should know that they should unmark the article if they haven't completed the review. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft to article[edit]

When drafts move to article space, do they show up in Special:NewPagesFeed? Is there an easy way I can make sure CSDable pages don't slip into article space? Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they show up in NPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New pages feed - suggestion[edit]

It would be nice if the new pages feed had a date filter (before after or between). Also, given the number of pages per day, being able to specify am/pm or the hour (1-24 in a dropdown) would be a benefit. It would simplify working through the list IMO if it isn't already available. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, this has been requested in phabricator and is tracked at the task above. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@

User:TonyBallioni, thankyou for the feedback. I had a look there. I would endorse the idea of a popup calendar per what I read there. What I didn't see there was the idea of adding a time as well. I haven't programmed for years but I would have thought there would be programming tools (templates)that reduced programming a calendar popup to a single line or two, so all up, it would only be a half-dozen lines of code? Rehards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)