Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

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

Wikipedia:User_pages/RfC_for_stale_drafts_policy_restructuring[edit]

I thought folks here ~might~ be interested in this RfC. It has a zillion subquestions but one of them is whether all articles marked for AfC should be in draft space or not.... Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreviewed pages dropping off suspiciously quickly[edit]

Several times now, I've seen the number of unreviewed pages on the feed drop from dozens to a handful or none within minutes, after being essentially stable all day. Has anyone else seen the same? It looks like someone speed-clicking through the list without really reviewing. Do we have any way of identifying if that is the case, and who might be responsible? —swpbT 20:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: SwisterTwister reviewed about 500 articles in the last 24 hours ([1]). Impressive. Sometimes they were making four reviews per minute. I wonder if WP:NPPCHK was checked every time.Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Swpb: There was an ANI thread about this last month. He's still receiving comments like this and this, along with a regular drip of "unreviewed" notices.  Rebbing  21:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC) (edited to correct link)
*sigh* Do we need to hold another ANI on this? –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Probably? —swpbT 13:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This thread on his talk page (permalink) may be of interest. When I talked to him about this last month, I assumed it was behavioral issue, but, after observing his interactions on his talk page, his AfD comments, and his reaction to the ANI thread—rather than acknowledging our concerns, he maligned his critics as trolls and got so worked up he considered retirement because of the "dramas"—I've come to believe this is some type of competence or comprehension issue. He's been receiving feedback about these issues since his failed RfA and he clearly prides himself on this work, yet he's not learning, he's not listening to reasonable feedback, and he's not slowing down, and I think any community response should take that into consideration.  Rebbing  15:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
If you ANI again, you'll have my full support. I've gone ahead and opened a new ANI. Clearly, this has been going on way too long. —swpbT 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

How long should one spend voting in AfDs?[edit]

Some here may know that I have lost many edits due to deletion, and User:SwisterTwister has voted delete in several wp:AfDs of articles that I started, so my ears perked up when I saw this user mentioned here. I have always been curious about those editors who manage to vote delete on AfDs using only a couple of minutes per discussion — How do they do it? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

This honestly should not be an issue because I'm voting at ones that include AfDs with no or few votes. If we're getting to a consensus, there should be no objections. SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Marking a Page as Patrolled[edit]

Is there a straightforward way that I can mark a page as patrolled using Twinkle? I see a Tag button that allows me to tag a page, which allows me to mark it as patrolled, but that requires that I check at least one cleanup or cleanup-like tag to apply. Am I missing something obvious? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

For a little while, I had the little tag in the lower right corner to mark the page patrolled. However, now I managed to install the Page Curation side bar, and I don't see an icon on it that just marks the page patrolled. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: In the page curation sidebar, middle button is marked with "mark this page as reviewed". Vanjagenije (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I figured that out finally. So reviewed and patrolled are the same. It's a powerful set of tools, but not very well documented even for experienced users who are retired IT people. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Prompt prods of new pages by new editors[edit]

I've been WP:PRODPATROLling the past several months and I have seen a pattern of new pages being promptly (within minutes in many cases) proposed for deletion. This doesn't seem to be inline with the advice at WP:NPP or WP:ATD or WP:PROD for that matter. Many of these new articles have been created by new editors and so there is a WP:BITE aspect to it. Here are some examples from my prod patrolling today. ~Kvng (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. If it's not being tagged before 10 minutes have passed, I really don't see the problem. I mean, PROD does state that if you object, you can simply remove the notice. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
So you don't see a WP:BITE issue here? Where does your 10 minute figure come from? Are you yanking my chain? ~Kvng (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The very page associated with this talk page says 10 minutes... –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's what I found:
  • Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may only serve to annoy the page author.
  • A good rule of thumb is to wait about 15 minutes after the last edit before tagging the article (or up to an hour if a {{newpage}} tag is present).
  • Research has shown that writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should be accorded at least 10 to 15 minutes to fix the article before it is nominated for speedy deletion.
This is talking about tagging and speedy deletion, not prodding. Do you interpret "tagging" to include prodding? ~Kvng (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. PROD is a deletion tag, as is CSD. The ones you specifically seem to be thinking about are maintenance tags. That's one type of tag, and PROD and CSD are another. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That wouldn't be my interpretation. Let's see what others have to say. ~Kvng (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at two of the pages, I think that one of them was an appropriate PROD and one was a reasonable case for AFD but not for PROD. My real question is: What do other experienced editors think should be done with new pages by new editors that have very little content? On the one hand, I agree that WP:BITE is a good behavioral guideline (and it is a guideline, not a policy). On the other hand, every guideline has exceptions, and I personally think that occasionally experienced editors tie themselves in knots to avoid being seen as biting. So what should be done with new pages by new editors that have very little content? They are easy to deal with at AFC (as declines), but how long should they be left up in article space? I know that there is no rule that says that cruft by new editors can be moved to draft space; is this a case where WP:IAR applies? If not, what should be done about new pages by new editors that have very little content? Ultimately, do they get prodded, or are empty pages the price that we pay to retain new editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PRODing is definitly 'tagging'. In general I like to wait a while to PROD, in my opinon it is only good for "one edit wonders". The exception, in my mind, is BLPPROD. I think it best to tag all unsourced biographies as soon as you see them unless you can immediatly find sources through something like {{find sources}}. This puts a clock on low notability articles, ups the requirement to RS (rather than if they put any source in which would prevent the BLPProD being placed). This saves having to run the article through AfD if the author has no RS and is of little inconvenience if the author has RS. It is good to place a note nicely explaining BLP sourcing requirements on the author's talk page so they do not simply get the impersonal automted notice. JbhTalk 00:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Like WP:COPYVIO, and WP:CSD, WP:BLP is a more serious concern and policy dictates that that be dealt with promptly. I'm concerned about normal WP:PROD here. I would prefer that maintenance tags be put on problematic contributions and then at a later time these can be escalated to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I don't understand what the rush is to delete new articles with notability and other issues. If you're itching to delete crappy articles, over at WP:WPNN we have a backlog stretching back to 2008 of articles tagged for notability. If it feels like you're "bending over backwards" for WP:BITE, WP:NPP might not be your happy place on WP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is actually a reply to me, if so I fear you misread my remarks. I find normal PROD to be useless when an article is being written as well as being inappropriate in most cases. If however, the article has been unedited for half an hour or so and is still stubby, or if more substansial for a couple hours, it is a good idea to do an abreviated BEFORE and PROD it to try to keep from clogging up AfD. (I seem to get more complaints about AfDing stuff I should have PRODed) A good PROD rational and, unless it looks like to author is a drive-by, a note on their talk page is good practice. This is hardly "bending over backwards" to BITE. If an article lacks noability it should not be here and waiting for it to fall out of the NPP queue means it will become lost amongst all of the other articles here, even if you watchlist it, since often these kinds of articles are not edited again.

The whole point of NPP is to insure articles meet minimum standards, including notability. JbhTalk 14:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for responding to two of you with one response. I'm sure you're aware that another constraint on prod is that it is supposed to be used for cases "expected to be uncontroversial". What I'm putting forward here is the idea that a prompt prod of a new article by a new editor on a contribution that does not qualify for deletion under WP:CSD is potentially controversial due to WP:BITE and the WP:NPP guidelines around that. I'm surprised that there is so much concern about keeping new articles articles with notability issues in mainspace for a few weeks while we let the newbie down easy when we are already hosting over 60,000 of these dating back as far as 2008. ~Kvng (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not just controversial and bitey, it's generally useless. Prod a page by a new editor within a couple minutes of creation, and one of two things will happen: 1. the author stops editing, and maybe wanders off to start yet another Wikipedia-is-evil page on facebook; or (more likely) 2. the author removes the prod template without comment in his next edit, whether or not deletion is appropriate. In the second case, a CSD tag would at least get reverted back onto the page, but you can never prod it again. —Cryptic 01:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Goals of NPP, Tradeoffs, Questions[edit]

First, I think that the comment that someone who is concerned about bending over backward to avoid biting newcomers may not in a “happy place on NPP” was meant for me, not for User:Jbhunley. (That had been my phrase.) However, his most recent comment and the previous comments raise questions as to what are the primary purposes and secondary objectives for NPP. I agree that the “whole point of NPP is to insure articles meet minimum standards including notability.” Other objectives, such as to be welcoming to newcomers, are secondary. Since many newcomers don’t understand notability, there is a difficult tradeoff between the primary purpose of NPP and its secondary goals.

I initially disagreed with the idea of waiting a period of time, such as an hour, before starting deletion, but I now mostly agree. I am not sure that I agree with waiting an hour before any tagging, but this discussion isn’t about tagging in general; it is about prodding and other delete actions. I initially thought that editors shouldn’t commit very incomplete articles to article space, and that they should wait until the article was ready for scrutiny before submitting it from user or draft space. I still think that, but I see that new users don’t know about spaces. A remaining question is, if an article has been submitted by a new user and clearly is nowhere near Wikipedia standards, what should be done with it? It can be prodded (or AFD’d or CSD’d); is that biting, and does notability trump the bite guideline. It can be tagged with a happy face, which seems to be one of the positions here. Is the new editor also advised that they need to read up on policies before submitting more articles? Is there a middle ground?

I think that we are in agreement that a few types of articles by new editors really need to be bitten by CSD tagging. (That is, the article, not the editor, should be bitten.) These include copyvio and serious BLP violations. I think that they should also include blatant advertising. (You will know blatant advertising when you see it. It uses the first person plural or the second person too much.) Other than that, I think that the same questions apply to articles by new editors that would normally be tagged for no context, no content, or no claim of significance, as for PROD.

Do we agree that the primary purpose of NPP, and its reason for being, is to ensure that articles meet minimum standards? If so, what are our range of actions on articles that do not meet standards? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon for opening up the discussion. I would prefer to focus on prod and more specifically on prompt prods of new articles by new editors. You say the goal of NPP is to assure that articles meet minimum standards. You acknowledge that the initial contribution is often skeletal and so some waiting period (I've heard numbers between 10 and 60 minutes now) is useful to give authors time to refine their contribution. I would prefer that we start with maintenance tags, smiley faces and welcome messages and slowly escalate to other interventions. The consequence is that, for a time, we will have to be comfortable with content that does not meet minimum standards. Is it possible that NPP could take it down a notch or look beyond the first 10 to 60 minutes of an article's existence? ~Kvng (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
First, I was agreeing that the primary purpose of NPP is to ensure that articles meet minimum standards. That wasn't originally my statement. Are you saying that NPP has a different primary purpose? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Second, far from agreeing with the concept of a waiting period on New Page Patrol, I disagree, except that I can see an exception for new editors. Experienced editors should know not to commit an incomplete article to article space. They can refine their contribution in user space. What I am willing to agree with is that new editors, who may not know about user space, may not know that they should refine their contributions in user space before committing them to article space. I am willing to allow some slop for new editors who haven't yet learned how Wikipedia works. I can see a pragmatic reason to wait up to an hour or so before reviewing articles on New Page Patrol, but I strongly disagree with those who imply that there is a general obligation to give general editors time to refine their contributions in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Third, I strongly disagree with putting smiley faces on content that does not meet minimum standards. I agree with maintenance tags and welcome messages, if we also put explanations on the talk pages of the new users. We should be trying to give new editors advice about how to become better editors, not just welcoming them. I dislike the smiley faces both because they are saccharine, and because I do not see that they are likely to be beneficial in the medium run, let alone the long run. Are the new editors who create the stubs also being advised that they should either improve them or ask for help in improving them, or are we just giving them smiley faces? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Fourth, is User:Kvng's concern focused specifically on PRODs of new articles by new editors, or are we also being asked to hold off on other review actions, such as CSD, AFD, and tagging? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay focused on prompt prods of new articles by new editors. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, our first and foremost goal with NPP is to ensure articles meet the absolute minimum standard. All serious works based on contributions by the public or academia review submissions with at the bare minimum this goal in mind, usually with a more strict goal (such as exhaustive peer review). Many of these serious works show apathy regarding contributors' experience; for example, if a inexperienced contributor's submission shows no serious attempt to write a respectable work, they will likely be rejected in a few minutes by an editor or reviewer. If the fear of biting newbies gets to the point that patrollers fear from taking appropriate action with regards to inappropriate articles by newbies fearing that they'll be criticized for upholding the quality of the encyclopedia, then we have a serious problem. Poor quality control leads to a proliferation of garbage. Of course, deterring potential contributors is always bad, and newbies should normally not have a red banner stuck on their new articles in the first few minutes since creation. But this has to be compatible with maintaining our quality and respectability as an at least half-serious reference work. Esquivalience t 02:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:Esquivalience. The goal of not driving away new editors is important, but the goal of maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia is even more important. If our fear of biting newbies is such that a necessary job can't be done, then the job needs to be redefined, rather than just doing nothing. The proposal below is a good way to redefine the job. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Could we address this concern by having NPP participants move articles that would otherwise be prodded into the AFC pipeline? ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As an RFC reviewer who has recently worked at NPP, I think that moving pages that would otherwise be prodded into draft space, and thus subject to AFC review, would be a good case of WP:IAR. There is no rule permitting moving a weak article to draft space, but there maybe ought to be such a rule. That way, the weak articles aren't in article space, but they can be improved while their authors learn, and their authors can even ask for help. I think it is a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. This would be a useful option however an RfC developing consensus to do so and develop the guidelines/procedures would be needed. If this were done IAR more than a couple of times there would certianly be a dramafest. JbhTalk 21:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As per the concern that doing this frequently via IAR, which is really meant for one-time or rare situations, would cause a dramafest, I have thrown the idea out at the Idea Lab. If that is accepted, a detailed RFC can be drafted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. JbhTalk 02:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I have a question. User:Jbhunley and User:Esquivalience have both stated that the primary purpose of NPP is to ensure that new articles meet minimum standards. I agreed with both of them. I was then quoted by User:Kvng as having stated that the purpose of NPP is to ensure that new articles meet minimum standards. I observed that User:Kvng was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement. So my question is: What does User:Kvng think is the primary purpose of NPP or are the primary purposes of NPP? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not spent time at NPP for a while and so don't have a strong opinion about primary purpose. I have posted here because I detected a disconnect between what I read at WP:NPP and behavior of NPP reviewers who do a lot of prodding. My reading of WP:NPP is the priorities are: ~Kvng (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. WP:CSD related activities
  2. Interfacing productively with new editors
  3. Applying maintenance tags and other WP:ATD
  4. Deletion nominations (respecting WP:BEFORE)
1,3,4 are "ensuring articles meet minimum standards". I would add that before tagging at least a brief good faith effort should be made to fix rather than tag. This means fixing bare urls rather than {{linkrot}}, trying to find good cats and wikifying rather than {{uncategorized}} or {{deadend}} etc. This also means trying to figure out if the article has a reasonable chance of passing notability criteria, maybe noting some sources on the talk page if you think it can pass, or starting deletion processes rather than tagging {{notability}}. An NPP reviewer should kick as few issues down the road as possible before they click "reviewed". JbhTalk 04:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
As a side note I do not think any article tagged with {{notability}} should be marked "reviewed". Rather another reviewer should take a look at it, or it should be moved to AfC. In fact I think that would be a good criteria to use for Robert McClenon's Idea Lab proposal - Any time a new article would be tagged with {{notability}} it should be moved to draft space and entered into the AfC workflow. JbhTalk 04:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Gah... that can become a back door delete. Need to think more about the knock on effects... JbhTalk 04:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Takeaways from AFC[edit]

As a reviewer at Articles for Creation who has recently worked at NPP. , and might or might not do so again, I have a few thoughts. NPP and AFC are different, but have some overlapping functionality in terms of reviewing the quality and content of new articles. Everything comes in through NPP. Only AFC submissions come in to AFC. NPP and AFC articles both come from a mixture of experienced and inexperienced editors. Most AFC submissions by experienced editors are accepted, and nearly all new pages that are patrolled by NPP reviewers are marked as reviewed, with or without tags. The real issue is pages created by new editors. In my experience, new editors and the articles submitted by new editors may sometimes belong to certain classes that are sometimes clear, sometimes less certain, and sometimes overlapping.

The first class of new editors, fortunately, is those whose objective is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. The articles that they, as new editors seeking to be constructive, submit often do not meet notability standards, and sometimes do not meet stylistic and tone standards, and their initial submissions may be accepted or declined. However, they are willing to learn from the advice of more experienced editors to improve their articles. Typically their articles will eventually be accepted. Occasionally their first topic of choice simply isn’t notable. In any case, such editors are exactly who most want to attracted and retain.

The second class of new editors, unfortunately, is those whose primary reason for coming to Wikipedia is a promotional or self-serving one, to publicize their company, or sometimes themselves. Their articles will almost never be accepted through AFC. (If they are, an AFC volunteer has probably made a human mistake.) Their articles will typically be declined, and occasionally will be tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising or speedy deletion as copyright violation (from the web site of the company being advertised. While it would be good if these editors will change their ideas about Wikipedia and become constructive contributors, it is, in my opinion, more important not to permit them to add promotional material to Wikipedia than to avoid “biting” them.

The third class of new editors is those who appear to be clueless. This class does (as noted) overlap both with constructive editors and with promotional editors, but there are a few completely clueless new editors. Their submissions to AFC are declined for many reasons, for notability reasons (but sometimes for what are really social networking profiles), as test edits, as blank edits, or sometimes because the reviewer can’t figure out what the submission is supposed to be. Some of them do then acquire clues.

Applying these observations to NPP may be useful, although all reasoning by analogy is limited. The articles that are being proposed for deletion, which were the original subject of this discussion, probably fall into the third class, submissions by new editors who are, at least at the time, clueless. (Unsourced biographies of living persons are a special case, because they may be submitted by otherwise clueful new editors who just don’t yet know that biographies of living persons absolutely require sources.)

Are the articles by new editors that are being proposed for deletion: inadequate articles by constructive new editors; promotional pieces; or articles by clueless new editors? I would assume that they are not promotional, but the work of editors with varying mixes of good faith and clue. I think that this categorization may be useful in helping us to decide how to deal with inadequate articles at New Page Patrol. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak for PROD (I always AfD), but the vast majority of newbies are frustratingly hit-and-run: create a subpar article at best and leave, not responding to any concerns that I convey at their talk page, and showing no serious attempt to back their article even for the first few days since creation. Even with PROD does this appear: many newbies do not act on concerns, but when their article is tagged with any deletion template, they suddenly come to remove the template or defend their article vigorously. Perhaps WP:ACTRIAL would ensure that only newbies serious about creating an article can create one, but the WMF went against a community consensus and vetoed it. Esquivalience t 11:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Promotional articles (your 2nd class) can be handled by WP:CSD so that leaves the well intentioned (1st class) and the clueless (3rd class) and the. I beleive policy indicates we need to WP:AGF on the part of these editors and I don't think prodding their contributions less than an hour in is doing that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume that User:Kvng means that promotional articles entered directly in article space can be handled by WP:CSD. Only the most blatant promotional articles at AFC are handled by CSD. Most are declined as reading like an advertisement. Sometimes the AFC reviewer discovers that the NPP reviewer has already put WP:G11 on the article. There isn't always a clear distinction between the first class and the third class at AFC, and I have no reason to think that NPP is any different. In any case, most well-intentioned articles at AFC are declined on the first pass. Establishing notability and providing proper references to establish notability really is hard. Some well-meant articles entered directly into mainspace are presumably nominated for AFD.
User:Esquivalience states that they do not PROD new articles, but use AFD. Does User:Kvng also consider that to be biting them? If User:Kvng agrees that clueless articles can be moved from mainspace to draft space, should completely inadequate (although clearly well-intentioned) articles be moved from mainspace to draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not as focused on AFD of new articles as on prod because there's more light at AFD and so AFD is less likely to delete underdeveloped articles on promising topics and AFD participants are more able to effectively push back on blatantly WP:BITEy NPP nominations.
Clueless and well-intentioned submissions should be given the same good-faith consideration. If NPP reviewers consider a new page worthy of deletion but it does not qualify for speedy deletion, I think the proposal would be to move the article to draft: sapce, slap an AFC banner on it and a notice on the author's talk page and see if anyone ever pushes the AFC submit button on it. ~Kvng (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
If a proper job is done of explaining to the author, then the author can be expected to push the AFC submit button. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed the idea of moving the inadequate articles to draft space in the Idea lab. The next step, after discussion, is an RFC at Village pump (policy). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative on this. I've posted a notice at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I am facing considerable push-back at the Village Pump on the idea of moving the inadequate articles into AFC. If anyone here feels strongly that moving the inadequate articles into AFC is appropriate, can they please also provide their input at the Village Pump? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

More Thoughts About Inadequate Articles by New Editors[edit]

As I noted just above, I am getting pushback at the Village Pump about the idea of sending inadequate articles by new editors to AFC. The editors there have in particular taken issue with the idea that the do not bite guideline is a reason to avoid proposing deletion of inadequate articles by new editors. So we need to consider what should be the consensus among NPP of how to deal with such articles if the move-to-AFC concept is rejected. I see at least four approaches. The first seems to be to put smiley faces on the articles, welcome the editors, and try to explain to them that their articles need improvement. I haven’t seen anyone except User:Kvng state that position, but that position has been stated and should be discussed. (As I have noted, I take very strong exception to the smiley faces, but that is my opinion, and is worth at least what you paid for it.) The second is to nominate them for deletion at Articles for Deletion. The third is to consider and dismiss Kvng’s criticism and propose them for deletion. I personally think that good arguments besides those of Kvng have been made against the PRODs. (Other people suggested that, so it may be worth more than you paid for it.) The fourth is to consider A7 seriously, and tag some of the articles for speedy deletion for no credible claim of significance, and nominate the rest for AFD. I personally think that the second and fourth ideas are those that should be seriously considered. (I still also personally think that sending the articles to AFC is a reasonable idea, but I won’t push it when I am clearly in a minority.)

I would like to ask whether either Kvng or other editors have had success in getting new editors to improve clueless articles by new editors. If statistics exist, I would like to know what they are. My own thought is that I agree with User:Esquivalience that new editors can be "frustratingly hit-and-run" in not trying to improve inadequate articles, and that implies that there is a diminishing return to trying to welcome and teach these editors. Maybe new editors who submit an inadequate article are not the new editors who are about to become productive editors; maybe new editors who are about to become productive editors either submit a reasonably good article, or start out with other activities than article creation.

I have said a lot for one day and will say more elsewhere or on another day. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned before, maybe WP:ACTRIAL could work, with little cost but huge benefits. It's a shame that the 2011 WMF defended vehemently the "anyone can edit" principle at the huge cost of quality. — Esquivalience (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Esquivalience: I once saw somebody suggest something similar to WP:ACTRIAL in passing. It was that users who weren't autoconfirmed would be required to use AfC to create the article instead of being able to do so directly. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
My experience with the articles I have deprodded is that most of them stick, some are sent promptly to AfD where more than half are then deleted but most require non-trivial AfD discussion. I rarely see new editors participate productively in any of this. Many seem reluctant to even deprod even if their initial submission is somewhat reasonable and it addresses an arguably notable topic. I don't think new editors are equipped to participate in notability and sourcing policy arguments associated with CSD, PROD and AFD. This is diving into the deep end of WP and I don't think it's a good introduction. The learning curve is not quite as steep at AfC. Creating a new article is not the best place for a new editor to start but it seems to be the place a lot of them begin. ~Kvng (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Rough Consensus[edit]

There has been discussion about moving articles from article space to draft space in three places: here; at the Articles for Creation talk page; and the Village Pump Idea Lab. There is strong pushback against the idea of moving inadequate articles, whether by new editors or otherwise, to draft space, unless the editors agree. In the absence of a Request for Comments, I think it is fair to say that there is rough consensus against the idea. That idea was proposed as a compromise between tagging inadequate articles for proposed deletion, and the idea that doing so would be biting the newcomers, so that their articles should be tagged with smiley faces and the editors should be gently encouraged to improve them. I think, as a result, that we should conclude that there is also rough consensus here against the idea that inadequate articles by new editors should be met by welcomes and gentle encouragement, let alone with smiley faces. If anyone disagrees with that rough consensus, an RFC is appropriate. There is a widely held view that inadequate articles should not be tagged for deletion (any type of deletion) until a reasonable period, maybe an hour, has elapsed. (I personally disagree with giving experienced editors any lag time, but am willing to give that lag time to new editors who may not know about user space and draft space.) So I would conclude that the rough consensus is that new editors should be given a short-time pass on inadequate articles, but that otherwise there should be no special exception on deletion of articles by new editors. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree with the 'no deletion tagging of any kind for at least an hour'. This is not the current practice. CSD and BLPPROD should be done relatively quickly, not 1 or 2 minutes after creation, but they should not be allowed to sit around either. Also the question of any deletion tagging was not the locus of the discussions, rather it was quick PRODing. In that case I can agree that there is a consensus to not PROD very new articles however, unless I missed something, most of the discussion was for more of on the order of 15-20 min rather than on the order of an hour. I dislike giving specific times since that is likely to lead to wiki-lawyering. JbhTalk 17:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed. CSD should be done after roughly 15 minutes in my opinion, with the exception of G3, G10, G11 and G12, which should be done immediately. BLPPROD (at least in my opinion) can also be done immediately, due to the softer nature of it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)::Agreed. CSD should be done after roughly 15 minutes in my opinion, with the exception of G3, G10, G11 and G12, which should be done immediately. BLPPROD (at least in my opinion) can also be done immediately, due to the softer nature of it. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
So in any case do we have rough consensus against the original idea? The original idea seemed to be that inadequate articles by new editors that would otherwise be PRODed should be welcomed, gently encouraged, and tagged with smiley faces. There seems to be rough agreement, except perhaps by one editor, that such articles should, after some short period of time, be tagged for deletion, whether for CSD, BLPPROD, PROD, or AFD. So I would say that the response to the original post should be: don't tag in 1 to 2 minutes; don't let inadequate articles sit around for a long time, either with or without welcomes to their authors; consider carefully which of the deletion tags to use (which is always good advice). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with that statement. JbhTalk 17:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this rough consensus but maybe that's why you're calling it a rough consensus. I appreciate the need to deal with copyright, BPL and CSD issues promptly and we have good processes and policies for dealing with those. But why the rush on other reasons, most prominently notability? Where does this 1 hour rule of thumb come from. Most other things on Wikipedia happen on timescales measured in days and weeks. ~Kvng (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kvng: It's just a time frame after which it is considered less oppressive to begin dealing with issues. It's an "okay, I think you've waited long enough now, go ahead." –Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but that's not a justification for acting so quickly. What's the justification? Part of Robert McClenon's consensus is acknowledgement that these prompt prods are bitey but since these contributions are so horrible it is necessary to deal with them in an hour or so. What sort of horror are we talking about? What's the rush? ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Kvng writes above: 'Most other things on Wikipedia happen on timescales measured in days and weeks.' PROD starts a process that lasts seven days. If Kvng is saying that PROD shouldn't be started in one hour in the case of inadequate articles by new editors, how long should experienced editors wait before taking action? Are they optimistic that, with gentle encouragement, the new editor will rework the sub-stub into a reasonable article? Alternatively, are they suggesting that the sub-stub should be AFD'd? (I can go along with that, but it might be seen as a burden to the editors who !vote and close AFDs to nominate things that should have no snowball chance.) Is Kvng optimistic that the new editors will learn how to improve the sub-stubs? (My own opinion is that some clueless new editors will eventually acquire clues, maybe within a week, maybe not, and that some will not acquire clues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned whether new editors improve their original contribution. What I care about is giving them a better initial Wikipedia experience. Creating a new article is beyond most new editors. Nevertheless, this is where they start in droves. Just because a new editor is unable to effectively improve their contribution doesn't mean it should be immediately deleted. We work collaboratively here to improve each other's work. I don't see how it hurts to leave an orphaned crappy new article around for a few months. This gives the community opportunity to improve it and gives the new editor time to orient themselves.
I need to understand the argument against this. There's a huge gap between proposing for deletion within 10-15 minutes of creation (which I believe is currently considered acceptable NPP practice) and tagging for notability or other serious but non-time-critical issues and letting various cleanup wikiprojects take it from there. So, in the face of acknowledged negatives associated with the practice, please explain to me what is the compelling reason for NPP promptly proposing deletion of articles on what individual patrollers deem to be non-notable topics. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Because if the experienced reviewers, the ones who follow this proposed long wait, wait days to review some drive by reviewer will mark a crap article reviewed and then it is pretty much here to stay. NPP is not primarily about providing a smiles and flowers experience to new editors. It is about insuring a minimum standard of article. If a bad article is PRODed then point the editor to Teahouse or AfC. We should be nice and try to be helpful but NPP is not a wiki-nanny service. It is quality control. JbhTalk 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is it unsatisfactory to tag these promptly (e.g. with {{Notability}}) and have them considered as candidates for deletion at a later day by other editors? ~Kvng (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, at the start of this discussion you were asking for wait times on the order of 15 minutes. Now you want days??!!?? It is just not going to happen. JbhTalk 20:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
What I want to know is what is the justification for the current 10-15 minute minimum guideline and what are the expected consequences of increasing that. At the extreme, I would expect that if NPP stopped using PROD or AFD, the encyclopedia would have a bunch more orphaned, short, low-quality articles on marginally notable subjects. I don't see this as a significant problem because I don't see how they negatively affect the reader's experience of the encyclopedia in any significant way. For those that are upset by below-the-surface cruft, I would suggest you would have a much bigger impact on quality in this area if you spent your time working on the backlog of articles with notability issues at WP:WPNN. These stretch back to 2008 so you're unlikely to bite anyone by working to improve or delete them. ~Kvng (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your question has recieved several, very detailed, answers throughout this thread. That you disagree with them does not make them less. I guess I can give you the blunt answer. Look at all of the shit that has piled up because of being simply tagged and left in WPNN. Piles of crap can be shoveled from the top or the bottom. Since new articles must be reviewed anyway it is silly to add to the pile for someone else to clean up. Particularly when, as WPNN shows, no one wants to shovel the pile from the bottom.

I suggest we should simply agree to disagree at this point. JbhTalk 21:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The answer I have received is that the NPP mission is to ensure minimum article standards are met for new submissions. I asked how quickly after submission that is expected to be achieved. The answer I'm getting here is, "immediately." The 10-15 minute guideline is merely designed to help ensure that the submission is complete before it is reviewed. There is acknowledgement that NPP can bite and that biting is bad but the feeling is that ensuring minimum standards is much more important. Please let me know if I have misunderstood because what I have learned in this discussion, although it may not directly contradict, has a very different emphasis and tone than what's up at WP:NPP. ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That's about right however, you keep bringing up biting yet you do not acknowledge that almost all of the people who have commented here have discussed how they work to mitigate the potential for biting newcomers. I know you feel strongly about this topic but you seem to be seeing partial agreement as disagreement. In just this thread I have said:
  • "It is good to place a note nicely explaining BLP sourcing requirements on the author's talk page so they do not simply get the impersonal automted notice."
  • "A good PROD rational and, unless it looks like to author is a drive-by, a note on their talk page is good practice"
  • "I would add that before tagging at least a brief good faith effort should be made to fix rather than tag. "
  • " If a bad article is PRODed then point the editor to Teahouse or AfC"
Nor do you seem to have paid attention to the times I have said
  • "PROD, in my opinon it is only good for "one edit wonders". "
  • "I find normal PROD to be useless when an article is being written as well as being inappropriate in most cases"
Others in this discussion have said similar things. So, a better restatement is: NPP exists to insure articles meet certain minimum standards. While performing this task reviewers should be sensitive to, and work to avoid, biting newcomers. JbhTalk 23:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for restating. I am concerned that no matter how you sugarcoat it with talk page messages, invitations to the Teahouse etc., prompt deletion of an editor's first contribution is going to have an inherent bite. I am also concerned, based on my experience at WP:PRODPATROL, that the non-bitey NPP behavior we strive for is not consistently achieved. ~Kvng (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Seldome is anything consistently achieved on Wikipedia, except perhaps wiki-drama Face-smile.svg. JbhTalk 01:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the drama[edit]

  • I've held back before commenting here in order to see this discussion develop. As the one editor (and admin) who has been the most persistently active in the research for solutions of quality control of new submissions over the last 7 or 8 years, and who is still active on this front and will possibly be facilitating a cross-Wiki discussion at Wikimania on the subject later this month, I firmly underline the statement We should be nice and try to be helpful but NPP is not a wiki-nanny service. It is quality control.
All the issues outlined in the discussion above boil down to simply two things:
  1. The refusal of the Foundation to provide funds and/or engineering to develop a proper landing page for the project so that newbies know up front what they can and cannot do here. The problem being that the WMF jealously guards its right to quote statistics for growth based on all new article submissions, and therefore will not allow those that are inappropriate to be deducted from their stats, and was most probably the underlying reason for rejecting the overwhelming community consensus at WP:ACTRIAL. Everyone here is missing the thread further up the page at #NPP: a cross-Wiki critical issue
  2. The lack of education of those who patrol new pages -or their unwillingness to do the job properly; exacerbated by the fact that although the one most vital maintenance feature of Wikipedia, NPP does not require the slightest demonstration of competency for the task - a paradox in view of the far less important AfC project which requires reviewers to have minimum qualifications.(RfC coming soon).
Address these two issues, and all the other points of discussion above will be resolved. We can only hope that with an almost 100% turnover in senior staff at the WMF, their new goals will be oriented more seriously at these urgent requirements rather than constantly investing into solutions for non existent problems; it's not as if there is a lack of funds (which was one of the fake reasons provided by one staffer who recently joined the exodus). @DGG:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, which makes sense, that the WMF has a corrupt motivation for not supporting any efforts at quality control. It is unfortunately now clear that the WMF is not really serving either the community of editors or the community of readers. (The community of readers, far larger than the community of editors, has a need for quality control, because they expect Wikipedia to be a good source of information.) I wish that I could come up with a kinder characterization of the WMF's agenda. (I could come up with one, but it wouldn't match the facts.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this background. The issue of discouraging/disqualifying paid editors has not been brought up in this discussion as a motivator for the prompt dispatch of new pages. I appreciate this concern though I'm sure you appreciate that heightened awareness of this would create tension with WP:AGF. Your green text above squares well with my summary of the MO here at NPP.
I appreciate that NPP is on the receiving end of a fire hose and would like to see that be made more manageable. In that endeavour, I am willing to consider lowering or delaying standards for new articles and I'm getting the clear message that the other editors here are not interested in such consideration. I do support your two numbered initiatives and I think both have the promise of improving things here for new editors and patrollers but it sounds like the first is DOA and I fear, based on my experience at AfC, that the second is subject to the "consistently achieved" limitation Jbhunley and I discussed at the end of the last section above. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding that the rest of us are not willing to compromise on the quality of new articles. In particular, I don't think that the strategy of giving gentle encouragement to the editors of poor-quality articles is likely to result in those articles being brought up to standards. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be right about the fate of the articles. On the other hand I think we would improve new editor retention and help them improve. The cost of this is allowing crappy new articles to linger in mainspace for a few months. ~Kvng (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Most of the crap new articles are created by hit-and-run editors: create and run. No responses to queries I give them. Leaving crap articles in mainspace may actually deter editors away: giving them the impression that we do not have even the slightest in quality control. Esquivalience (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Based on my observations at AFC, and I admit that AFC is not the same as NPP, I have no reason at all to believe that giving any sort of kid-glove treatment to the authors of substandard articles will either result in improvement of those articles or improve editor retention. If I understand User:Esquivalence, I completely agree. Giving easy treatment to the authors of substandard articles will not result in the improvement of those articles, nor is it likely to result in retention of those editors, but it may annoy those new editors who come to Wikipedia to make useful contributions, and who see that crap is rewarded just as much as quality. That is my opinion. Of course, User:Kvng appears to think that crap articles are written by future good editors who simply don't yet know the difference between decent articles and crap, and I and possibly Esquivalence think that crap articles are written by crap editors, not by new editors who need handholding and smiley faces. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Whomever is correct I would say it is pretty much indisputable that if editors are not shown, as soon as possible after starting an article, that Wikipedia has minimum standards they will never become good editors - why take the time and effort to learn the standards and write good articles if crappy articles stay. We can encourage them to learn, help, point them to AFC or TEAHOUSE but we do not leave non-policy compliant articles on Wikipedia. That is the whole freaking point of NPP - to weed out articles which are, by policy, unacceptable.

@Kvng: At this point I believe this has been discussed to death, here, at ANI, wherever. If you want to put up an RfC to change things please do but I very strongly believe the consensus among those who do NPP is that NPP is quality control, we have other places and processes for hand holding of new editors and our job at NPP is to courteously point editors to those places or, sometimes, provide assistance ourselves. It is not possible to teach how to do something properly by "passing" failing work. JbhTalk 03:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

'...the consensus among those who do NPP is that NPP is quality control. is partly true, JB, but only in so far as it concerns the small group of highly active, very experienced patrollers. While the recent stats demonstrate that they account for a fair proportion of patrols done through Page Curation, a very large number of patrolls are done by a very large number of transient, often newand/or inexperience operators who breeze by to experiment with the tools. The often ge things wrong. Far too often.
Following off-Wiki developments, the RfC to improve NPP and the use of the Page Curation suite of tools is shortly to go live. If there are any last minute questions or suggestions, please contact me on my talk page.
Robert McClenon and Esquivalience are definitely on the right track even if they haven't mentioned the evils of surreptitious promtion and other artspam, and talks have begun with the WMF with a view to revive (at least the requirement) for the New-Article Creator landing page that Brandon was forced to abandon - do please read this thread in the recent archive if you haven't already done so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Kudpung: Can you provide a link to the draft RfC or is it being developed privately? Esquivalience (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not so much 'privately', Esquivalience, but not everything is obliged to be developed on WP pages - there are offices, meet-ups, conferences, workgroups, MediaWiki, WikiMedia, etc., and minutes are not always taken; after all, this is a critical cross-Wiki issue. Doing it this way also avoids a lot of backgroud noise. That said, the draft is not yet complete, but it will be short and sweet: Minimum mainspace edits and minimum tenure to oerate the Page Curation tools, creation of this user group, and th right accorded through PERM. do please read this thread in the recent archive if you haven't already done so. Suggestions welcome. He hasn't posted here for a while, but I believe vQuakr to share an interest in these developments too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW: Anyone wants to know just how poor the relations were with the WMF (at least at junior staff level) in the 2011 runup to the development of the Page Curation tools, just get up to date with this. It is hoped all round that following Wikimania 2016, that reasonable support can be expected without junior WNF staff claiming volunteers' projects for themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

New template idea[edit]

Hi, as this also affects new page patrollers, I'm adding a notice here. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#New_template_idea for the discussion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP reform[edit]

Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a discussion about the systems of control of new pages. Anyone who is going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: Edit Review Improvements[edit]

If someone amongst you are interested as a patroller, there is a new project described on mw:Edit Review Improvements--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Indian temples & villages[edit]

Lately I've noticed several articles created on the topic of an Indian temple or village where the author is a first time editor with the same username as the temple or village. The one I've just patrolled is obviously a first time editor. I'm not sure what to make of the trend but it's made me curious enough to ask, anybody else noticed anything or have any ideas what's occurring? Big rollout of rural broadband perhaps? for (;;) (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi For (;;), can you give us some examples of such articles? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, The one I dealt with yesterday was Charan mandir created by User:Charan mandir. I didn't touch any of the ones I'd seen before so unfortunately I have no record of them. for (;;) (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
for (;;), Charan mandir (I've looked at it) was correctly deleted and it as the only thing to do with it. Probably created in good faith but by someone , as you say, probably in deepest rural India who is going to take a very, very long time to learn how to write for an encyclopedia. Make anote of any others you come across and let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, will do. Thanks, for (;;) (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

NPP backlog[edit]

The backlog currently stads at over 7,000 pages. This is higher than it has been for a long time. Help is needed but naturally only from experienced editors, and please bear in mind that in spite of the backlog, accuracy rather than speed of patrolling us essential. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

New Page Patrollers are asked to be particularly vigilant for pages suspected as being created or edited by paid users. The criteria to check are listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. More background on this important story of enormous abuse is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report.

Generally, inexperienced or too rapid patrolling are the main reasons that such articles get patrolled and slip through the net. If patrollers come across pages they don't know what to do with, they can leave them and pass on to the next one. Ideally however, they should not be too embarrassed to ask for help here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

BC year articles[edit]

We have a bunch of articles such as 569 BC which were all created from redirects by User:Alumnum (pinged) abd, as far as I see, do not contain any non-trivial information. Any ideas what should we do with them? Patrol and let them stand? AfD? Revert back to the redirect?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please allow me to analyze the situation more comprehensively. All years from 510 BC to the near future had an article of their own with a lead describing basic information about them (in my edits I just streched this back to 580 BC). Years older than that don't have a lead and some (random ones) are simply redirected to their correspondent decade (as 569 BC was redirected to 560s; some of the same decade had leads and others hadn't). I think all years of recorded history are supposed to have an article about them (instead of an article about the decade, century or millenium they belong to), but I may be wrong. Anyway, deleting or keeping, we should follow a standard and not select random years to have an article while its adjacent years do not.
I have an opinion on a closely related issue. For historical reasons, all leads of articles about years 46 BC on cover basically the same information (with some little additional details from 1 AD on), making them nearly identical; so I believe that a template will be more effective than repeating the same description in each article (as we do now). Leads of years before 46 BC, called Pre-Julian years, also have a standard of their own; I was trying to create a template to reproduce their lead, but I failed since I couldn't find how to convert BC years to the ab urbe condita. Any suggestions? - Alumnum (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
For the first question, I believe that every article should have some non-trivial info. If say we known that some king died in 567 BC but we do not know anything for 566 BC, let us keep 567BC and redirect 566BC to the decade article. Do these articles have any potential to be filled ever with any info? This is my personal opinion of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
For the second question, unfortunately I have no idea. If no other users reply, it might be good to go to a specialized project.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to keep them all as redirects to their respective decades unless any particular year becomes so big that it makes the decade article too long. That way the information is kept in context. --Slashme (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. It also makes navigation easier. There is quite a bit of slack in dating events at that range as well, many events may be given ranges of possible years in various sources. JbhTalk 13:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Slashme and Jbhunley. Remote years with few known relevant events make very small articles, and some of the dates are imprecise. Listing them in their respective decades or centuries or millennia makes more sense. We already do this with dates in the far future; for example, instead of "3000" we have 30th century, in which only events like astronomical predictions or cultural references are listed. - Alumnum (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Combining of NPP and AFC[edit]

I have seen a mention of a plan to combine New Page Patrol (NPP) and Articles for Creation (AFC). Is that correct, or is there some other plan involving some degree of combining of two types of review, or have I misunderstood, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I've heard that float around as well. The idea is to give users who create an article directly in mainspace the same level of support and oversight that is given to users who create an article in AFC. Perhaps through, for example, having all new non-autopatrolled mainspace articles go to draft space. Kudpung, I'm sure, will be able to provide more context. Σσς(Sigma) 06:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The RfC to combine them was held a while ago but has not been enacted due to waiting on internal restructuring of the WMF who dies the software. Combinging will give us the best of both worlds: The user right for AfC applied to NPP (which up to now can be done by anyone), the dynamic tam at AfC helping out on NPP (current backlog 7,200), a new Article Wizard for Drafts, and an extended suite of the excellent curation tools to replace the AfC helper script. As a result, both the AfC project and the essential NPP operation will work more smoothly and enable more interaction with good faith creators, and help track deliberate spammers à la Orange Moody. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So Fresh albums[edit]

I see there is a series of albums called So Fresh, and I'm not convinced that any of them are independently notable. They all contain a template at the bottom linking to the various years, so the list is easy to find Most of them say nothing except that they're compilation albums and what the track list was. I would like to redirect most of them to the main article, but I'd like to hear a few more voices before being so bold. --Slashme (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

They have all been #1 on a national (Australian) music chart, as stated in the main article, so pass WP:NALBUM. Many have gone Platinum or double-Platinum based on sales so, again, passes WP:NALBUM. I think you would see a lot of push back because people who write album articles think the track list is important and covering them all in the main article would be unwieldy. You may try a WP:MULTIAFD based on "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."(WP:NALBUM) and see where it goes. JbhTalk 16:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS missions[edit]

There are quite a few SpaceX Cargo Resupply Mission articles in the New Pages Feed. Surely they're not all independently notable? At a certain point, this kind of thing gets to be WP:ROTM. Most of those pages are pretty much carbon copies of each other. Any thoughts? --Slashme (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the more recent resupply missions at List of Progress flights are bluelinked, too, so this isn't unique to SpaceX. WT:N is probably a more central discussion location if you wish to review notability of unmanned spaceflights. VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to require at least one RS source for all new articles[edit]

There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)