Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NPR)
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)


Automate populating the NPP backlog chartEdit

Allow me to assist with automating Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart, if you think that's a good idea? I love humans but they make mistakes, and can be forgetful (and I don't mean you, Insertcleverphrasehere, but the human race as a whole :). I could author a bot for this fairly quickly, I believe. I'm a little concerned that daily updates would over time make the template too large, but as long as it renders quickly, I suppose this is fine. Also it currently lives on a talk page, which is a bit odd. Should we move it to the template namespace? Or maybe Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart?

Let me know what you think! :) MusikAnimal talk 23:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Automating it definitely seems like a nice solution, as long as it wouldn't be too difficult to set up. I feel it would be really nice to be able to not worry about updating the chart manually, although I can't really speak for ICPH, who's the main updater currently. I have never understood why it is in the talk namespace (well, technically Wikipedia talk namespace, but a talk page nevertheless :)); talk pages are for discussion or something which is solely useful for talk page transclusions, not for a backlog chart used mostly on Wikipedia namespace pages. I would definitely support moving it to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart or Template:New pages backlog chart. Also, for some reason the documentation is in the Wikipedia namespace, which doesn't make much sense.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of automating (real virtue to having a sample at the same time every day) and moving it to WP space. Thanks Musik.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Great. Looking forward to hearing Insertcleverphrasehere's thoughts. Another thing -- it's been a while since I worked with the Graph extension, but I think if we store the data as JSON then it will load in real time. Basically, right now every change to the data means a job is fired to update every page that transcludes it. Similar to WP:SIG#NT this isn't a great practice if you want to keep putting this chart in your mass messages. JSON is more bot-friendly, anyway. I can handle all that technical gobbledygook MusikAnimal talk 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal I mean, that sounds fine to me. If you have a look at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart, you'll see that I just use the hide brackets to comment out data older than 6 months. There is another chart at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2 with all the data visible, but I only update it every couple of weeks. It would be good to have it automated, I've been doing it manually because I tracked down as much old historical data as I could and then sort of just kept updating it. Not highly tech savvy myself, so I had just put it together the best way I could originally, if JSON is better, that sounds good. I did notice that it wasn't necessary to purge any of the pages after updating the chart, I wasn't sure if that was because of local caching, but I guess it makes sense that its been sending updates to all the pages (oops). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: So it should only print the last 6 months of data? If that's the case, there's no worry of it getting too large. I can also make the bot update Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2, but since that one is supposed to be long-term, I suggest we only update maybe once a week? MusikAnimal talk 22:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal Yeah 6 months seems managable on a chart as you can still see the day to day. On a 'year' chart you can't notice individual days. Updating the old chart doesn't have to happen often. I used nettrom's data for a while, but I'm not sure if it includes the 'nominated for deletion' section which is a hundred articles or so that I've been leaving out (probably does). The Backlog 2 chart has a lot of data from before Netrom started gathering data that I gathered from posts scattered through talk page archives around the wiki where various people mentioned the size of the backlog (that's where the data back to 2016 came from). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I started tracking the NPP backlog 4x a day for ACTRIAL and have continued to do so. The code is here, the data is stored in the s53463__actrial_p.npp_queue_size table on the tools.labsdb server in Toolforge. Has data from late August last year onwards. Please don't hesitate to use any or all of that as need be! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nettrom! I'll probably go by action=pagetriagestats since this is what has been used in the chart up to now (it's the same number you see at Special:NewPagesFeed). Your dashboards are very helpful, though. I don't know if they are linked to anywhere on the NPP pages, but if they're not, they should be! MusikAnimal talk 22:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
But actually, if your numbers compare 1:1, or close to it, we can use that to import historical data. I'll check out the database. Thanks again MusikAnimal talk 22:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I checked it out. Thanks for making that database public! However it would seem the numbers are dramatically higher (currently at 16717, versus 3733). Are you including drafts, by chance? MusikAnimal talk 22:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: They started out at 16,717 in August of last year, prior to ACTRIAL being deployed. At the moment, the most recent snapshot I have is 2018-11-08 12:00:50 at 3,776 unreviewed articles. The query (lines 50–57 of this Python script) only counts non-redirects in the main namespace. It should be the same query that is used to show the number of unreviewed articles in the PageTriage feed, as that is what I used to write it. Hope that clears things up, and please let me know if something is confusing! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
My mistake! I had it sorted in the wrong order =p Looks like the data matches the pagetriagestats verbatim. I will use it to import historical data. Thank you! MusikAnimal talk 18:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Insertcleverphrasehere, SkyGazer 512, and Barkeep49: I have created the new chart at User:MusikBot/NPPChart/Chart. This sources the JSON page User:MusikBot/NPPChart/Sources/daily (and we'll have another for weekly, spanning a larger date range). Does it look okay? If so I can have the bot start populating it. I'll need to get bot approval to move these pages within the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers space, but it shouldn't take long. MusikAnimal talk 20:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, Can it be embedded at chosen sizes like the current chart? Will it autoupdate? Would like to use it at a smaller size in an updating fashion for future newsletters and other advertisements. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Yep, you can pass in |height= and |width=, as with {{User:MusikBot/NPPChart/Chart|width=400|height=200}} which produces:
It will auto-update, with the bot filling in the data at User:MusikBot/NPPChart/Sources/daily. Max 6 months at a time (though here it is a bit more), and the "weekly" variant will span as far as we have data. I could also add start and end options, I think. MusikAnimal talk 20:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, Looks good to me then. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Everything is all set up! The bot is now populating the data. There are four types of charts: hourly, daily (default), weekly and monthly. Each has their own dataset. You can control how far back the data goes for each type at User:MusikBot/NPPChart/config, where the values in the same units as the keys (so 168 hours = one week, 180 days = six months, etc.). Use * to tell the bot to never prune the data, and go back as far as data is available (August 29, 2017). Documentation for the bot is at User:MusikBot/NPPChart, and documentation for the template (to be moved later) is at User:MusikBot/NPPChart/Chart#Usage.

I'm going to let this run for a while before opening up a BRFA. Technically you shouldn't transclude the bot's template yet, since it's not approved, but no one is stopping you (I did transclude it above!). I'm going to do a BRFA either way. Once approved we'll move the template and the datasets as subpages of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Cheers MusikAnimal talk 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, another thing. The bot is getting all data from Nettrom's database. I need to query it anyway to get historical data, so might as use it for current data too :) Thanks Nettrom for providing this! MusikAnimal talk 00:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, Is there any way to get the historical charts (weekly/monthly) to show the old data from before ACTRIAL (going back to July 2016) which is currently found at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: You said those were manually entered? With all due respect, it's a bit iffy because those were human figures. E.g. you may not have remembered to include unreviewed pages that were nominated for deletion, etc. Or maybe we have non-human data from that time, Nettrom? I know we did a lot of analysis. My charts were about deletion rates, which wouldn't help here.
But furthermore, the bot has been written to query Nettrom's data on every run. So if we want those other numbers, I either have to make the bot manually honour them, or ask that they be added to Nettrom's database. MusikAnimal talk 17:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, It's a bit disappointing that the graph wont show the data from when the backlog was insanely massive. The older data from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2 was gathered from various noticeboards where people mentioned the current size of the backlog. While it likely contains some amount of error. It is better than nothing, so I'd suggest requesting that Nettrom add it manually to his data set. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: The automated data goes back to August 2017, when the backlog was 16,000+ articles. I think that's pretty massive! =p But reviewing the older manual data, I see numbers like 1000, 11500, 15800, etc. Those can't be accurate. Whomever was rounding up/down by at least a hundred. Also, was the backlog really that low in mid-2016?
If we really really want (I think we do), we could attempt to do some analysis to get more precise historical data. I foresee this as a big-ish perhaps infeasible project, so if it's okay, I think we should move forward with the bot-generated reports as planned. Obviously, we can continue to use Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2 as we so please. There's no need to retire it. MusikAnimal talk 19:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, The Backlog can vary by several hundred per day depending on the time of day it was recorded (i.e. that spike in July on the automated chart is from a few hundred redirects that were tagged for deletion, adding them to the backlog as 'articles'), I remember because I reviewed them, and I recorded it after reviewing them, which is why it doesn't show on the manual chart. That doesn't make the manual chart 'wrong', in fact, i'd say its more representtive of the actual situation on the day... but I digress.
My point is that we can rely on the bot data from august forward, but it would be good if we had the data from when it was 22000+ in the oldest charts. If you want the data to be 'perfect' well it can't be anyway because it goes up and down each day a lot sometimes. Rounded data is better than no data. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Sure, I understand. Hrm, this is tricky! I still am hesitant solely because it's unverifiable, and that's not to question that you were recording things correctly. But like I said, for long-term historical data let's just continue to use Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2 for the time being.
For the bot's data, it's significantly easier to use the database. Let's see what Nettrom says. If he's able to add it, then the bot will automagically show it without us needing to do anything.
Do we know where the really low 2016 data came from? That in particular I am skeptical of, given it was pre-ACTRIAL. MusikAnimal talk 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, I think I remember that the oldest 2016 data point was from a post that Kudpung made on DGG's talk page. He said something to the effect that the backlog had been practically gone several weeks before that point and was skyrocketing, so I put a point in at a relatively low level of a thousand or something a few weeks before the date of his post. That data point I remember being the most iffy. The rest of them were direct comments of what the backlog was on that particular day, or from other various charts that have been created in the past showing the backlog. The stuff from later in 2017 I gathered myself. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere and MusikAnimal: I'm sure I can add the historical data to the database by having a column defining what type of measurement it was (manual or automatic), and then add in the data from the chart. One thing I need to know, though, is what exactly we'll be adding. Based on this discussion, it sounds like we want to add everything from Backlog chart 2 up until 2017-08-29 (when the script takes over), with the exception of the first data point (2016-06-05, 1,000 articles in the backlog) as that data point is not trustworthy. Is that correct? Cheers, 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Nettrom Sounds good to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Nice work, MusikAnimal, thanks! I don't see any important issues with it currently.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

()   BRFA filed MusikAnimal talk 01:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A seven-day trial has begun. The chart is now at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart, with the datasets at:
Per above, these are not (yet) meant to replace the long-term data available at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart 2.
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Whenever you are ready, we should be able to replace Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart with #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart]] and all the transclusions of the old chart will still work. MusikAnimal talk 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Not that it's any of my business these days, but the backlog has increased by a factor of 10 in less than 20 weeks. Stretching the graph to make it look flatter doesn't change the reality of the situation.What will happen is that the tiny handful of reviewers who do all the work are going to get fed up of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    Kudpung, The graph isn't stretched. The new one by Musik is basically identical to the one at the top of this page. If you are referring to the one in the NPR reviewer of the year section below, that one was a custom graph I made to be exactly one year. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm going to try to add "start" and "end" options to the new chart too, which will allow you produce a 1-year variant, or any arbitrary date range (but currently it will only go as far back as August 2017). MusikAnimal talk 17:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Insertcleverphrasehere: The BRFA has been closed as successful. I'll leave it to you to update Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart. I think alls you need to do is replace it with #REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart]]. Moving forward, be sure to trasnclude {{Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart}} wherever you want to show the chart. If and when Nettrom adds additional data, it will show up automatically. I'll also look into making the new chart template accept date range parameters. Cheers! MusikAnimal talk 19:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
    MusikAnimal, Looks like there is a slight error. The redirect isn't working correctly on the old newsletters because I fucked up when I templated it originally. I wrote {{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart|width=350|height=150|}} instead of {{Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart|width=350|height=150}} (and extra | at the end), this causes the redirect to break. The old chart worked that way apparently, but the new one obviously doesn't because it has additional parameters. I guess I should request an autowikibrowser fix to the old newsletters. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    I ran an AWB fix on all the newsletters that were still on people's talk pages. As for the archives, I hardly think it matters. all in all it looks like this is sorted satisfactorily assuming that Nettrom can add the historical data successfully (it still isn't showing on the all time weekly graph, so I assume that this still hasn't been done). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    Your assumption was correct, Insertcleverphrasehere. I found some time this week and have now updated the table with the historic data.
    MusikAnimal: The update adds a new column called npp_method. It's "manual" for all the historic data and "automatic" for all data that I've gathered using my logging script. Let me know if there's anything. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draftifing (again)Edit

Was it decided somewhere that it's acceptable to move any new article without sources to draft space? I thought that only blps required sources to remain in mainspace. I've seen several articles moved to draft recently that don't fit the criteria listed on WP:DRAFTIFY. Natureium (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever restricted to BLPs? The four criteria noted at WP:DRAFTIFY (has promise + has issues + (no current improvement or COI) apply to quite a large range of possible candidates. Personally I'm treating draftification as a kind of vote of confidence in the author, in that I assume that they are willing and able to iron out the current obvious bugs, and send a usable-as-is article back to mainspace. In such a case chances are higher that it'll be done by the editor who is already up in the topic, than a random passer-by who notices the {{Unsourced}} tag. Not sure if that is strictly by the book, but this bit of NPP does come with a fair amount of discretionary latitude. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
"Has issues" is extremely vague. Almost all new articles have issues of some kind, and if they don't it's suspicious. What's the line between tagging and marking patrolled and moving to draftspace where they have to either submit through AfC or know how to remove the template and move it back, and it won't get attention from anyone other than the author? Why are we aggressively moving pages into draftspace when they are better than a lot of the articles we have sitting in mainspace currently? Natureium (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Has issues" is vague. Let's say "has glaring issues that look easily fixable by the author". I don't know, are we aggressively moving lots of pages that would already be a gain for mainspace WP? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
In practice, I usually draftify articles that have not passed through AFC when they don't meet notability guidelines but seem like a promising topic, or a topic whose sources would be difficult-or-impossible for me to find (i.e. topic whose coverage is unlikely to be in a language I can read, or subjects that are vague and/or niche and could potentially have relevant coverage that won't be found using a keyword search) and thus don't feel comfortable nominating for deletion outright. Essentially, I see it as a second chance to improve articles that should otherwise be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Draftifying can be a drastic step. If an article has any incoming links they would then turn red, and any incoming redirects would then be deleted. Unless the creating editor or someone else notices the draftification, understands what has happened, and can fix it, the article is effectively deleted without due process on the decision of one new page reviewer. I suggest that tagging and the normal deletion processes are usually more appropriate. PamD 23:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, When I used to do reviewing, I would draftify any page that IMO would probably pass AfD with a little work, but which would be a disgrace to leave in mainspace in its submitted condition. Most pages that receive maintenance tags and are left in mainspace just become perma-tagged articles and all they do is bolster the WMF's claim that Wikipedia has Xmillion articles. Some of these pages would be fit for mainspace after some treatment but NPP is not a field hospital, it;'s a triage; strictly speaking nor is AfC a first aid centre, but there is the WP:ARS - which I rarely hear spoken of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I endorse Kudpung's approach to draftifying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
As do I. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Me four. Having said that, Rosguill's approach is also something I support. Out of all the articles I've reviewed, I've only draftified a very few. And in one case, there was a sockpuppet who was simply moving articles from AfC to the mainspace without any regard to notability or quality, and I draftified about 10-15 of those articles. Although I probably "reviewed" about 40-50. Kudpung turned me on to leaving a message on the creator's talk page when tagging an article, and I think that will help cut down on permatagging, but only time will tell. Onel5969 TT me 20:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey voting is openEdit

Please go to m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers/Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements to support the New Page Patrol Community Wishlist Proposal. While you are there, have a look for any other good proposals that you feel should also have some support. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

m:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Watchlists/Watchlist_item_expiration looks like it might be of interest to new page reviewers. Vexations (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
My plan had been to only vote for our improvements however I am pleased by the early support we've received (thanks for your canvassing work Kudpung and Insertcleverphrasehere). If we continue to look very solid suddenly voting for others would not look to jeopardize our chances. Are there other proposals like that one which people want to highlight which would have auxiliary benefits for patrollers? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A few will quite help us and I will list them shortly.
Going by the current trends, (and comparing that with the trends of previous years), ICPH and K have been immensely successful in their canvassing efforts. WBGconverse 08:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, it's not canvassing when it's for the greater good of the populace.BD;DB,P! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
SshibumXZ, I know that canvassing is explicitly allowed, had asked for a massive canvassing and was commending their efforts. WBGconverse 17:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, the canvassing isn't over yet - we still have more up our sleeves. But such a campaign has to be extremely carefully crafted, worded, and presented, otherwise it will just do more harm than good. - and the horn of plenty has made it quite plain that this exercise is only a 'survey', read: 'guideline.' We ain't there yet, but we did get get ACTRIAL after a fierce battle.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That just isn't true. According to the votes so far, the NPP proposal is far in the lead -- twice as many votes as the #2 proposal -- and I'm pretty sure that means it'll finish at #1 by a wide margin. That's great; it guarantees that the Community Tech team will work on Page Curation next year, and being so far in the lead will give that project more weight with the team. It's good to keep telling people about the survey, and it'll be nice to finish with a really big total, but I don't think there's any risk at this point. This isn't a battle; it's just a way to gauge public enthusiasm for the most important projects. You're winning. You'll get what you want. Everything's okay. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), thanks. That's good to know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Six more days of voting and we are only 9 votes away from having the most votes on any proposal ever (as it is we are in all-time second place behind the top proposal from last year). With 50 votes more than the second place entry in this year's wishlist, we are almost assuredly going to get the top slot in the current wishlist. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah we got over that threshold. Our proposal is now the most supported wishlist proposal ever, though the 'night mode' proposal might catch up to us by the end of the voting period (they work on them based on how high on the list they are, so please vote if you haven't already). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

MoveToDraft.js edit summaryEdit

When draftifying a page using User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js, the script leaves a boilerplate edit summary that says, "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script)." I think this is misleading, as it suggests both to article creators and to reviewers using the script that being "undersourced" alone is and can be the sole reason for an article's draftifying, which should not be the case, as briefly discussed above. More often it's some combination of poor writing, promotional tone, lack of evident notability and inadequate sourcing. There surely are new unreferenced articles that are well written enough that placement of an {{unreferenced}} tag would suffice, while on the other hand are promotional articles with multiple sources that aren't G11-worthy but bad enough to keep out of Mainspace. "Undersourced" does not reflect these nuances at all. I'm not an NPR, so I'm raising this here in hopes that those who use the tool the most would have some input on a better default edit summary to suggest to Evad37. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be suggested to Evad37. It gives a prepopulated blank and allows you to fill in whatever reason you want. The problem is people being lazy and not filling in the reason they are draftifying. I almost never use the default summary, because it doesn't often apply. This is up there next to dishonest edit summaries on my list of things that make people bad wikipedians. If you are incompetent enough to not be able to articulate the reason you are moving a page to draft and change the message that is posted on the user talk page to actually be appropriate you should not be a new page reviewer. Natureium (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Paul 012, I'm pretty sure you could change the default using var m2d_rationale = "Your message here"; in the same manner that he suggests on User:Evad37/MoveToDraft for m2d_notification. As for the default, undersourced articles are sometimes sent to draft, when they aren't yet complete but yes there often needs to be other problems as well. If there is another reason that it is being sent to draft, the user should change the summary. That being said, a change to some variant of "I'sn't ready for mainspace" would possibly be better. Ping Evad37. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: New CSD criterion for rejected / advertisement-declined draftsEdit


My NPP request has been archived by the bot & I am not convinced about the decision that was made on my application. Where can I further discuss the issue? I seek a justification for this rejection that seems unfair. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dial911: I don't know where outside of WP:AN you could appeal a PERM denial but would suggest, given that there was extended discussion that was had, that you go back to doing good work, continue with AfC and try NPP again in 90 days when a different admin might view the request or the same one might see different evidence and be ready to grant the right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I think there should be a standard (as objective and as straightforward as possible) criteria for these rights no matter who reviews it at PERM. Thanks for the suggestion though   Dial911 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be nearly totally at the Admin's whim, and once a decision is made they tend to follow each other. AFC is a heck of a lot more interesting. I use NPP only as I run across pages that are ok. It's mind numming work on the feed. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey! Legacypac, definitely I like working at AFC. However, after facing such random rejections at PERM I tend to know what exactly does one need to become a reviewer at NPP. Admins have all the time in the world to discuss several other issues but nobody constitutes a common policy/rule about granting rights. Dial911 (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
And nowadays admins at their call grant NPP rights to those who are asking permission to work at AFC. Dial911 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) It's more fun to discuss policy on calling spammers on the phone. User:Primefac or User:Kudpung might have some wisdom or be willing to grant NPP. I've seen quite a few NPP flags handed out to people applying for AfC lately too. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


After two threats to take me to ANI if I once more tag an article as unreferenced/needing inline citation without trying to add an inline citation myself User talk:Boleyn#Page patrolling and unsourced content and five hours later a threat to take me to ANI because I filled in the message twice letting an editor know their creation had been tagged (even though I had not let them know of the majority I had reviewed, and tagged) User talk:Boleyn#Curation, I am taking an extended Wikibreak and am not planning to return to NPP - I'm not sure how I can, and am planning to take a break from editing at all, as I can't in all conscience when people have felt there are serious concerns. I would like to thank the editors from this project, who have been so supportive and do such great work here. I have enjoyed the difficult work here. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You do a lot of good reviewing. Anytime you do a lot of reviewing you are bound to have times someone disagrees with you. It's not worth getting upset over. Enjoy a well deserved break. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I have always respected your reviewing Boleyn and am sorry it's become unpleasant. I hope you enjoy your wikibreak and you find your way back to NPP after a good long respite - we can never have too many quality reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Boleyn, I've posted on your talk page and won't repeat myself here, but the accusations are entirely baseless. If you decide to return, we will be more than welcoming. I think I speak for most here that I trust your reviewing accuracy even more than my own. I hope you enjoy your break, and don't take the NPP hate too personally. Cheers and best wishes, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What a shame, Boleyn! I have always thought what a conscientious reviewer you are, and tried to use your actions as a guide to mine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Boleyn - Coming from someone who took a break from the project, I hope you do intend to come back after a brief respite. The messages on your talk page were completely unwarranted, and showed a virtually vacant knowledge base of NPP. Insertcleverphrasehere's commentary on your talk page was spot on. The only way new editors learn is if you leave messages, else they'll continue to make the same mistakes. It'd be a shame to lose you now that the backlog is beginning to tick up. But as I said, I understand what it's like to be in your position.Onel5969 TT me 23:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a real shame @Boleyn:, had they taken it to AN/I they would have been ripped to shreds, there was no basis to their accusations, they should be ashamed of the disrespect they showed towards you. You are a good wikipedian, a good editor and a good NPP, one of the best. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the behavior of Ceoil and especially that of Rzvas, still a relative newbie and whose talk page is full of complainants, is totally inadmissible and they should be ashamed to have lost one of the longest and most experienced New Page Reviewers. Boleyn's work is irreplaceable and as a bastion of NPP for many years, her work will be sorely missed, and the backlog of Wikipedia's most important process will grow out of proportion. Good reviewers are hard to come by - don't be fooled by the number of 640, most of them are inactive or hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No offence Kudpung, but that seems like cheap talk and "ashamed" is a pretty big word. I don't buy this retirement or attempt at guilt tripping, esp given they had put up notice "after" I had weighed in. What I was asking for patrollers to be less hasty and not dont template regulars, with a specif editor in mind, ie provided a solution to genuinely problematic editing. And what did they do in 2-3 days...again template that regular. There seems to be an ownership gap here and hiding behind self righteous curtains wont help. Sorry but actions have effects. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I can understand why given the context that you would come out with a strong statement but that rehashing the previous incident here is likely not going to benefit anybody and not the encyclopedia as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep I think you are missing the point that I only engaged with Boylen as they were repeatedly blanket templating long term editors, and my suggestion was that they slow down and consider more. Not that they slow down and retire. I think one thing that being missed here is that repeated templates are very off putting to core editors, esp when the templater has been asked not to do that again, but [shrugs]. Re Boylen. who is rather aggressive with this stuff, my impression is they can give but not take. I would apologetically prefer 6 templaters to 1 article creators. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil, you yourself were far more combative in your comments on both talk pages than Boleyn was (who was quite polite in her messages). Find a mirror please. As for her sending the templates; I reviewed the instances in question, and not to point fingers at anybody, but they were both warranted and appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Strawman, and that kind of detatched, from its merits comment rather prooves the point....we have a problem with editor competency on page patrol. Was intended to be meaningful or suggest a solution? Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil, I've already commented on Boleyn's talk page regarding this, in a lot more detail, I pinged you there already. I don't really feel like repeating myself here, so go and read those comments again. Unless I missed something, the problem here seems to be you not being able to let it go. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd have let go about 5 weeks ago but have been multi pinged here multi times; I dont watch navel gavzng pages like this. The fuck do did ye expect me to do; all I will say that this is classic blame the victim, and outside that, could care less. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil, That's fair I guess (I didn't notice the pings above). I think we should all just drop this and let it go. I do really hope nobody quits over this inconsequential nonsense though. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil (not pinging as it seems to be your preference?) you were pinged once before you replied. I don't quite understand why you were pinged either. That's why I said given the circumstances it was understandable that you came out with a strong statement (here). I don't think I've missed any point and pinged you to try and express some empathy and avoid a rehash like the above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legacypac, Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Cwmhiraeth, Onel5969, Polyamorph, Kudpung for your kind words, I had felt knocked for six by such strong, critical messages and like I must be completely misunderstanding patrolling. I didn't mean to start any arguments. Merry Christmas everyone, Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Lists whose content is entirely WikiData GeneratedEdit

While patrolling today I found today quite a few new list articles, seemingly about museums, that were made by Pietro. These lists are all generated entirely from Wikidata using Template:Wikidata list. I have a lot of concerns about this. Is anyone aware of any on Wiki discussions about using this template to generate articles? I know there has been a fair amount of discussion about use of Wikidata in Infoboxes and my understanding is that the community has decided against that. This seems a step beyond that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, there have been several discussions about Wikidata lists too. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists, Talk:List of women linguists. In short, there is no consensus. There's nothing ipso facto wrong with using Wikidata to generate lists, but there are concerns about sourcing, and the continued use of ListeriaBot to maintain the list (overriding local changes on enwiki) is particularly contentious. Often they end up being converted into regular lists after the initial generation, but this should only be done on a case-by-case basis with explicit local consensus. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: This is helpful background but my research suggests that the consensus that use of the template should be avoided as an ongoing template - not the least of which is because Template:Wikidata list says not to use it in mainspace, which is also consistent with the AfD. As of Saturday when I was looking into this the template was only present in 2 articles beyond the museum lists that had been created. Whether it can/should be used to create the bulk of content in an article does seem to be less firmly established, though as I suggest below I'm not sure ListeriaBot was ever approved to act on articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: As you'll see from the linked discussions I was staunchly in favour of retaining Wikidata lists, so my take isn't unbiased. Still, I am certain there has never been a consensus against the use of ListeriaBot, and of course on Wikipedia we don't need to seek prior approval. Blanket-disabling it may well be effective, as it has in many cases, because editors who are tired of years of disputes about Wikidata will avoid edit-warring with you over it – but that's not exactly a good faith attempt to reach a consensus. Especially if you don't intend to continue maintaining a list yourself, why override the creator's desire to link the list to Wikidata? – Joe (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I think the idea that I a Wikipedia editor cannot edit an article, only I a (currently non-existant) Wikidata editor can indirectly edit an article, is against the five pillars especially because that content lock is enforced by a bot, in a way that other content enforcing bots (e.g. Cluebot) don't operate: I could get into an edit war with it when other content monitoring bots will not try to reimpose their version if undone by a human editor. So I feel really strongly on that front. The museum articles in question are notable and so I have more complicated feelings about that - on the one hand, hooray there is more notable content on the encyclopedia. On the other hand I feel that it's creation via automated methods does go against policy and guidelines; on the third hand if he had created the pages in draft or userspace, removed the template, and moved them over to mainsapce that strikes me as more an assisted editing process and with-in policy and guidelines. There's a reason I thought better of my initial impulse to delete as a bad precedent and have instead left the articles for the time being as this is discussed - acknowledging that it needs to eventually end up somewhere more centralized; I am thinking WP:VPI or WP:VPT, but wanting to tap into the experience of this group for their knowledge, such as what you've done by referencing the earlier discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Minor correction. Anyone can edit Wikidata. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I probably said it inelegantly when I wrote "only I a (currently non-existant) Wikidata editor can indirectly edit an article". My point was that I do not currently edit Wikidata (though I could) but I shouldn't have to in order to work on Wikipedia article content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to what Joe Roe claims, there is consensus, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, that such lists are not allowed in the mainspace. RfC close states "not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia ". At the moment, Wikidata use is basically only allowed (in the mainspace) in infoboxes and external links templates. Fram (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And, as I think you know, it immediately follows that with, "There is a valid point raised that while running text is clearly not suitable for Wikidata use, it might be worth discussing use in tables specifically – but no consensus regarding this has been reached in this discussion" (my emphasis.) – Joe (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And, as we already discussed, the two discussions you link above both lead to a consensus not to use these lists in the mainspace. So, a general consensus not to use it, a specific indication at the RfC that discussion about one implementation may be useful, and two discussions where this specific implementation was found not to have consensus, and was removed. So what's your basis to claim that "In short, there is no consensus." when everything (including the fact that the "don't use this in mainsspace!" stood for nearly two years without discussion) points to a rather clear consensus? Fram (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The basis is that the formal close of a well-attended RfC literally says "no consensus". – Joe (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
No consensus, "might be worth discussing". It was tried anyway, and reverted after discussion, so the discussion has been had and at the moment indicates that such uses are unwanted. Feel free to discuss and get a change for this (consensus can change and all that), but don't ignore the discussions that have happened after the RfC closed. Your claim that converting the listeriabot-generated lists to standard lists "should only be done on a case-by-case basis with explicit local consensus" is not correct. A consensus is needed to use this non-standard, contentious system, not one to keep it out of mainspace articles. If there is local consensus on an article that in that case, such a Wikidata-based list overruling local editing is warranted, then an RfC / global consensus would be needed to remove it anyway. But no local consensus is needed to remove an implementation of such a list, local consensus is needed to include it. Fram (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Archives helpEdit

I recently updated my computer, which deleted by browser history, and I no longer have the link to the Special:BlankPage/Page-triage-stats-month (sic) page which was an alternate listing of top reviewers. IIRC, this was linked back in July 15 2017's patrol-push. (Archives 11-12) I cannot find the link anywhere in the archives, and it looks like the original discussion about the push is missing. Does anyone have the link, or a link to all Special:BlankPages so I can find it again? Thanks Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no list of Special:BlankPages, they're generated on the fly. You're looking for [1],[2], [3]. Which are generated to you because of this. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

NPP/AfC issuesEdit

Back in April I came here with issues about the NPP and AfC actions of CASSIOPEIA. I checked my watchlist yesterday and noticed they had left 34 messages on User talk:Pietro. Were Pietro not a long-term user, this would be extremely bitey. Currently, it just seems like spam. Half of these 34 messages are draftifying notifications, and the other half are notifications of comments on AfC submissions. For both of the scripts that added these, there is an option to not leave a talk page message. The articles draftified were all lists of museums in a given city, which should not have been draftified. They were lacking sources, but it was easily ready for mainspace. Praxidicae has since moved all the lists back to mainspace. They have been reviewing AfC drafts and new pages, commonly spending less than 3 minutes on an article. Notably, they reviewed the AfC submission Uniforms of the Italian Armed Forces in 4 minutes, which is nowhere near enough time to even open all 73 sources used to support the substantially long article. They had draftified VfL Eintracht Hagen, which doesn't seem to make sense to me as it's a notable subject that, although lacking sources, didn't require much work to find references and fix the article's problems. I have moved the article back to mainspace. I asked them about these issues on their talk page here and they did not seem to understand why the 34 talk page messages are wrong or the merit to the other problems I brought up. I haven't had the time to fully go through their recent reviews, but the ones I did check were not done well. For example, they marked the digital divide in Africa as not notable. The article isn't suitable for mainspace yet as it's basically an essay, but it is definitely a notable subject. Just looking for a second pair of eyes on this. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: I haven't had a time to take a close look but I would like to point out something about the draft. AfC drafts can be declined if they are not yet shown to meet the notability guidelines even if it would be possible with substantial work; hence "Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines." This submission was, as you mentioned, clearly not suitable for mainspace. It has only one source which supports very little of the content. The article is really an expository essay at the moment and little of it would be useful as an article. Reviewers are generally not expected to undergo a complete rewrite and add tons more sources and then accept the article; if an article is a very long ways from being ready for mainspace, it can be declined, especially if it isn't yet shown to meet the notability guidelines. There was even an RfC related to this which closed with a unaminous consensus to not require a BEFORE search when declining drafts.Again, I haven't had time to take a look at the other issues you brought up, but I do believe the declining of the draft wasn't inappropriate.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
SkyGazer 512, I’m not questioning the declining of the draft. I’m questioning the reasoning behind it. An article on that topic would be an expansion of Africa, which is inherently notable being a continent. Vermont (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Africa is notable. The digital divide in Africa, rural Timbuktu, or in general is only notable if there is sourcing which discusses it. Now in this case we all agree that it is a notable topic, but had to chime in to slightly challenge the "it's an offshoot of a notable topic so it too is notable".
As to the drafitying well see my message two topics up. These 34 pages were essentially bot created by a bot that I don't believe was approved to do this kind of work. The community has not endorsed this kind of use of Wikidata to the best of my knowledge. I believe these lists to be notable but I find their creation to be EXTREMELY troubling and contra to policy. I did not go the mass draftication route, and would not have left 34 messages if I had, but it doesn't strike me as an unreasonable response to the situation. I had come here since this community is broadly knowledgeable about policy and procedures and these were new pages and I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Further investigation today only suggests my initial impression was correct. I do not think we can address this here - but I do think it needs addressing, with a reasonable outcome that we leave these pages but make sure it doesn't happen again. Courtesy ping to Listeria's programmer Magnus Manske. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I know that Africa is clearly notable, but I don't think it's necessarily something that everyone can agree on that an expository essay about a sub-topic of Africa which fails WP:GNG is automatically notable. While I personally would've probably used a different decline reason, I don't see the notability decline as unreasonable.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the digital divide in Africa page before it was declined. It was not ready to accept. If I encountered a page on Italian Military Uniforms with 73 refs I would do a quick look over to make sure it was on topic and the refs looked to be from reasonable sources, check for copyvio, and accept. I would not spend more than 4 minutes on something obviously notable and well done. (I've not looked at the specific page, my comments are general based on how it was described). I would not draftify a list of museums even if there were zero refs, if all the entries were linked to pages. Either the linked museums are really museums in the state they are listed under or they are not. It's a "sky is blue" thing. Different users have different levels of experiemce with various topics, so your milage may vary. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding as below
  1. Wikipedia is a platform of knowledge sharing where under the Wikipedia guidelines the knowledge/content is sourced and verifiable.
  2. If a page in NPP has yet to shown the requirements needed like no sources provided it could be draftified by reviewer - see WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY.
  3. List pages do require sources just like other pages - see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
  4. A NPP article move to draft, it would trigger an automatic message to the creator under move page user right "move to draft".
  5. Comments made on the draft pages is to inform creator of what is needed which was write politely and to the point. I notified the creator in good faith so their may know comments are made to their pages so their could provide sources. A page does not support by sources means not meeting the Wikipedia requirements where The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
  6. I do not understand the motivation of Vermont bringing it here as we have discussion in my talk page, and I hope not it was because I question them of why they approved an unsourced NPP article in their talk page which displease them, might want to get the admin to revoke my reviewer right as this is the second time of them bringing issue of my actions in NPP ( I might miss it and if so I apologies for that but I dont see Vermont complaint of other NPP reviewers any of their action in NPP) of notifying creator the issues needed to be fixed instead of leaving them to search of what is needed from ton of texts in Wikipedia or not sure what to do with the problems. If I am the creator, I would want to be notified so I know what happens to my article and what I would to do make the pages into main space. Just as I would normally, click the Talk Back /notification button when I have commented on Teahouse, AfD HD, HD or in AfC so the editors may know a comment is made.
  7. It is also a delicate issues for reviewers as sometimes we giving the creator more chances to rework on a draft yet we see complaint from other stating the draft needs to rejected instead of decline. And other time, we drafted an unsourced page, in regardless the subject is notable, as we act accordance to the Wikipedia policy and guideline where it stated content need to be sourced yet we face backlash of our action from other editors of why the page is draftified. Reviewers accepts a page without sources was not question yet they would question and complaint of others who do their job of why an unsourced page is draftified. I am here is to volunteer my service and learning a long the way as Wikipedia has so many guidelines and info which I believe even after ten year actively volunteering I would still find tons of things to know and to learn. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say,"I hope not it was because I question them of why they approved an unsourced NPP article in their talk page which displease them". I checked back to the discussion in April, and noticed you brought up my review of this page. I had explained that using the page curation tool reviews the page automatically once you apply tags. In that instance, I had BLP-prod'd the article as there were no sources and added a peacock tag. An hour later, there was a single source, so I removed the BLP-prod and replaced it with a BLP-sources. When I was finished with the article, it looked like this. You then added two more tags and seven {{cn}} tags. ([4]) I am not here to argue that; that disagreement is simply what caused me to add your talk page to my watchlist.
    In regard to the 34 messages (your point 5), you should have used one or two. 34 is basically spam.
    In regard to draftifying new pages, I think you're have the misapprehension that no sources = draftify in all cases. This is incorrect; the patrol, tag, or draftication of a new article depends on much more than simply number of sources.
    In regard to "we face backlash of our action from other editors of why the page is draftified", yes, yes you do. Everyone is responsible for their edits.
    I do not want your reviewer permission revoked. You are a great, active editor and patroller. I am here because I want you to recognize what was done incorrectly (34 messages, draftification of those lists, etc.) and understand why. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: I am afraid I totally disagree with this statement In regard to the 34 messages (your point 5), you should have used one or two. 34 is basically spam.. User:CASSIOPEIA was following perfectly the instructions in WP:DRAFTIFY which clearly say:
"Requirements for page movers
To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:
  • notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),
  • be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD.
Also at least one of the lists had only one entry and as to the usefulness of lists with a single entry...I have yet to find a guideline that deals with this. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that CASSIOPEIA not notify the author; rather, CASSIOPEIA should have used one or two messages rather than thirty four. Not only were they notified for every move individually, but also for the comments CASSIOPEIA added to every article after they had been moved to draftspace. Although it doesn’t seem to have caused much harm to the author in this case, I believe a new user would be dissuaded from continuing editing if they checked their talk page with 34 sections. Vermont (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The script is specifically mentioned as it facilitates the required notification. These 18 list creations were part of an automated article creation process with little or no editorial input from the user so I don't think 18 x 2 automated notifications of moves to draft space is a problem. When you look at List_of_museums_in_Piedmont for exemple there are a lot of errors in there even after the manual intervention by the creator. A tower museum? This is not supported by the article Mole Antonelliana which appears twice in list basically because of this [5]. There are a number of museums that are classified as National Museums but this is not supported by the articles, eg. Museo Egizio which says "The museum became an experiment of the Italian government in privatization of the nation's museums when the Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie was officially established at the end of 2004." The quality of the information from Commons is very poor, I personnally would be for sending these all back to draft space to be checked out and cleaned up before inclusion on mainspace. I would be interested in having the opinion of @Praxidicae: who moved them all back to mainspace. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis, Just to clarify: The reason Mole Antonelliana occurs twice in List of museums in Piedmont is that the Wikidata entry has two values for the property "instance of" (P31) and the Wikidata list template used to generate the list included the parameter/value |section=31. Listeria will create a heading (section) for each distinct value of "instance of", in this case, museum and tower. So Mole Antonelliana is not a tower museum, it is an instance of a museum and an instance of a tower. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Vexations This just goes to show why we shouldn't be generating articles with Listeria. there seems to be very little editorial oversight on what is entered in Commons. I recently came across an article in French about fr:Jean Cormier that had infobox info that said he was born in 1943 in the Kingdom of France I tried editing it and then realised that this info came from Wikidata and had been added back in June by an editor whose user page says ""Move fast and break things. Unless you are breaking stuff, you are not moving fast enough" (с) If you see that I broke some items, please let me know (ping or revert). This way I will learn from my mistakes". I mended what he broke but there is nothing in the article history that suggests there has been a change, I don't know if there is a notification on the watchlist or not. It seems highly dangerous to allow content to enter the articles here from a project that seems to mostly be concerned with copyright problems than any kind of accuracy problems. Pinging @Joe Roe: @Fram: and @Barkeep49: to see what they think. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that we're extremely unlikely to resolve this long-running dispute here. The backlog is rapidly approaching 5,000 again; spending time worrying about how a handful of basically-fine lists are maintained doesn't seem productive. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis, The problem with the museum showing up as a tower is not that there's something wrong with Wikidata; it's that the query was poorly written. Writing good queries is sometimes hard. As for watchlist notifications; In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist you can turn on Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist. The nice thing about Wikidata is that, now that you have found such an error it is trivial to find all such errors by writing a simple query to ask for all articles about people born after September 4, 1791 who are born in the Kingdom of France. I've found 47 such articles in French Wikipedia en 22 in English Wikipedia. And guess what? If someone fixed those French articles by editing their Wikidata entries, all those English articles are fixed automatically. Nice. Vexations (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Not really. The Kingdom of France existed long after 1791 (1814-1848), so your Wikidata "correction" would potentially make a lot of articles on many Wikipedias worse. One of the reasons why Wikidata infoboxes are not nice. Why anyone would use a Wikidata query to generate a list here with useless columns (the Wikidata description), dubious intersections, and less entries than we have on enwiki (which could easily be found through categories) is not really clear, it's a lazy, careless way of creating "articles". Letting Wikidata then continue to dictate the contents (through Listeriabot) is even worse of course. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── interesting...any chance of letting me have a look at the query? I'll see what I can do about modifiying the wikidata entries and adapting it to any other things I come across. But to be honest that doesn't really address the fact that wikidata (not commons my mistake) is not scrutinised in the same way that WPEN is. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • My 2c on this is that when you have a bunch of pages with similar issues by one author, it is generally better practice to send a creator one message explaining the issues with all the articles rather than many templated messages. This is more work and isn't required, but generally at the very least it is better to simply not send additional messages when the same issue is being conveyed, they'll notice the tags on their other articles too. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Except that the mesages relate to specific articles & drafts. A message saying "I've moved A to Draft:A and you can guess what I've done with the others", or "I've reviewd some of your drafts, guess which" is not helpful. The links to the specifics are an important part of the message.
If, as a group, we'd like the tools to implement lightweight follow-up messages in the same sections, like "I've also moved B to Draft:B. sig" and "I've also reviewed Draft:C. sig", then that's an issue to put to the maintainers of the tools rather than berating the reviewers. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
If I'm reading Insertcleverphrasehere's comment correctly, they are referring to a message like, "I've draftified: [insert the 18 pages here]. It is due to [insert reason here]." A single message mentioning the 18 articles' issues is better than 34 separate messages. Vermont (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be on the lookout at NPR for Pavan Kumar N R or similar, and report to an adminEdit

An IP is asking for the FP to be removed from the multiple deleted Pavan Kumar N R. My answer was 'No', because the article, a highly promotional piece masquerading as a BLP, is the subject of persistent socking by a large sock farm and attempts to create/re-create the article by hijacking other articles. The master account, the eponymous SPI, is globally locked across all Wikimedia projects. I have blocked this IP, and in any case, IPs (and new users) can't create articles.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The string is also on Titleblacklist, they can't create it even if the salting is removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Please report all found accounts to stewards to be locked at meta:SRG. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

4th December Backlog UpdateEdit

The backlog continues to grow at a slow and steady pace. Currently at 4377 articles in the queue. Roughly half of our backlog is older than 30 days, which isa bout as long as something should ever remain in the New Article queue for. We need to step up out game a bit to reverse the slide and get in on a downward trend instead. If things keep going the way they are, the backlog probably grow to the point that it will extend beyond the index point sometime in January or February. We can't let that happen.

Please try to push a bit more so that we can get the trend reversing and on a downward slope. We don't need much actually, we just need a bit more each day from everybody and we can get it to level off and even drop. It's not time to panic yet, but we are going to get to that point if we aren't careful.

We have had massive success in the community wishlist, finishing in the top spot with more votes than any proposal in the history of the wishlist, but we need to prove to the community that we can stay on top of the new page influx, and that we are worthy of the development time that the community has bestowed upon us.

None of this is meant to be a criticism of the level of work done by the team, I also have been very inactive on the patrolling side, due to personal life stuff limiting my time on WP. I understand that there are issues for many of us, especially going into the holiday period. Try to help as much as you are able, but don't kill yourself, we want more people reviewing a bit here and there, rather than relying a few people reviewing many hundreds of articles in brief bursts (I mean, that is awesome, but contributes to burnout, and isn't sustainable long term).

Cheers, good luck, and happy holidays to all, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Consider that roughly 300-350 articles come in each day that need to be reviewed, we are only falling behind by about 30 articles a day (on average). This means that on average we are reviewing only 10% less than what we need to be doing to keep it steady, and if we increased by only 20% it would trend downward at a similar rate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 ResultsEdit

The results of the Community Wishlist Survey 2019 have been posted at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Results --Vexations (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, our result was very good, not only the top proposal this year, but actually more support than any proposal has ever received.
I also had a chat with DannyH (WMF) last week, his team will be contacting us in the next wee while as they put together a workflow for our proposal. On our end we will be able to put forward suggestions on how best to accomplish what we asked for, but he also made it clear that we have to keep cool heads during these discussions. Outbursts and/or negative comments will be negatively received, so bringing up the WMF's neglectful past or playing the blame game (however justified we feel that it might be) will result in delays to work on our projects. Keep it civil, positive, on the topic of how best to accomplish the goals we have set out (even if we have to swallow our tongues). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Tools acting quirkyEdit

Same ole same ole - sometimes the curation tools show up and sometimes they don't. I have to reload several times to get them up. Ok - so onto the problem and reason I'm here. Second National Front of Escambray has a big ole copyvio notice on it and no article to see except what's in the history. I used this version to check for copyvio and it shows that it was fixed. Why is the tag still on the page? Atsme✍🏻📧 16:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, have you tried clicking the 'curate this article' link in the tool sidebar? Did it fix the issue? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, (my tools are in the top menu tool bar)-(Safari browser). I've tried purging, reloading, going back to NPR and clicking on Review again and again and again....sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Hard to move quickly when having to deal with that issue. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Ryan Kaldari (WMF) and MMiller (WMF). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm sorry you're still having trouble with toolbar appearing. Our engineers think this has to with the particularly combination of gadgets and skins you're using. Does the problem still happen if you work in Chrome (or in an "incognito" Chrome window)? Or in a "private" Safari window? Let me know if you don't know how to make an incognito or private window. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll try different browsers (I have Chrome and Firefox) and will go incog on Safari - will let you know in a few days. Thx for the follow-up. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF) - FireFox & Chrome work fine, but Safari v12.0.1 (14606. is qwirky. Incognito, the tools show up but it's still flakey. See following:
  • [Error] Failed to set referrer policy: The value 'origin-when-crossorigin' is not one of 'no-referrer', 'no-referrer-when-downgrade', 'same-origin', 'origin', 'strict-origin', 'origin-when-cross-origin', 'strict-origin-when-cross-origin' or 'unsafe-url' (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 18)
  • [Log] Exception in resolve: (load.php, line 2)
  • [Warning] Error: Unknown dependency: ext.gadget.MobileCategories (load.php, line 2)
  • [Log] Exception in resolve: (load.php, line 2)
  • [Warning] Error: Unknown dependency: ext.gadget.MobileMaps (load.php, line 2)
  • [Log] JQMIGRATE: Migrate is installed with logging active, version 3.0.1 (load.php, line 141)
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.position". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 234)
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 194)
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "schema.UniversalLanguageSelector". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 622)
  • See for migration info.
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.tipsy". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 279)
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "schema.ReadingDepth". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 1)
  • See for migration info.
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 189)
  • Please use OOUI instead.
  • [Warning] This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.ui". (European_Union_Observatory_for_Nanomaterials, line 1)
  • Please use OOUI instead.
  • [Warning] Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Error] [Report Only] Refused to connect to because it appears in neither the connect-src directive nor the default-src directive of the *Content Security Policy.
  • [Warning] Use of "addPortletLink" is deprecated. Use mw.util.addPortletLink instead (load.php, line 4)
  • [Warning] Use of "wgUserName" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Error] [Report Only] Refused to connect to because it appears in neither the connect-src directive nor the default-src directive of the *Content Security Policy.
  • [Log] Reflinks: Loading messages from cache @ 1543966752585 (index.php, line 61)
  • [Error] [Report Only] Refused to connect to because it appears in neither the connect-src directive nor the default-src directive of the *Content Security Policy.
  • [Warning] JQMIGRATE: 'jQuery.easing.swing' should use only one argument (load.php, line 141)
  • [Warning] Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Warning] Use of "wgUserName" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Warning] Use of "addPortletLink" is deprecated. Use mw.util.addPortletLink instead (load.php, line 4)
  • [Warning] Use of "wgServer" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Warning] Use of "wgScript" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Log] [XFDcloser] Current page is not an XfD page (index.php, line 93)
  • [Warning] Use of "importStylesheetURI" is deprecated. Use mw.loader instead. (load.php, line 4)
  • [Debug] Starting up worker (index.php, line 121, x4)
  • [Error] Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 () (arrow-expanded.svg, line 0)
  • [Error] Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 () (arrow-collapsed-ltr.svg, line 0)
  • [Debug] Shutting down worker (index.php, line 81, x3)
  • [Debug] Shutting down worker (index.php, line 81)

@Atsme: thanks for the detailed info. It helps to know that the problem is contained to one browser. I filed this here for the engineers to take a look, probably in January. Hopefully, you'll be able to review in other browsers until this gets figured out at some point. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Unreviewing a page I createdEdit

It looks like I cannot unreview a page I created. I created the redirect Easy Transfer, but it has been changed into an article. I'm not thrilled with the article, but I don't work in the A7 area and shy away from most notability decisions. It does look substantially different that the spam version that was deleted previously. I'd like the article to be reviewed by a reviewer, but aside from the (inefficient) method of posting here, is there no way for me to unreview the article to add it to the queue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: For this particular case, when a redirect is turned into an article, it automatically goes into the unreviewed queue. That mechanic is working correctly this time; I'm not seeing the full green check mark on the Page Curation toolbar.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's great. Is that new? I thought this used to be a way spammers got around new page patrol. Thanks for the info, I'll wait for the normal process then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how new it is, but I believe it's been around for at least a few months; I'm pretty sure when I first received the right back in August it was already a thing. Insertcleverphrasehere may know more about when this was implemented. It certainly is a useful system and helps immensely with disallowing advertisers to sneak their way around the NPP process.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It's been around at least from when I started reviewing I think which is May 2017. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I can’t remember when it was done but yeah it was changed this way to remove the spammer loophole. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the info and help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What the heck - we haven't eliminated the backlog have we?Edit

Ok, so when I'm reviwing from the new pages feed, I usually set it to display the oldest first and then I work from the back forward. Usually there's 5-10 former redirects back there categorized by the redirect creation date, and then there is the actual back of the queue, which is usually 3-4 months old. Today however, the oldest articles it's showing me are from - drumroll please - yesterday. December 4. If I scroll down a little bit it starts showing me articles from today. I double checked and it is still set to show oldest first. So what's going on? We haven't somehow miraculously eliminated a 4,500 article backlog overnight have we? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Try refreshing the feed using the Refresh list button at the bottom. I've seen this as a bug before. :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it looks fine on my end, oldest article is from 2015. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This has happened to me sometimes, and I actually have to physically click to show oldest first (even thought that is already flagged) for it to function correctly.Polyamorph (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This happens to me at times... or will only show like 6 total articles. Try clicking "newest", and then clicking "oldest" again. That usually clears it up.Onel5969 TT me 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
My experience mirrors Onel's. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! Refreshing it worked. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

640 ReviewersEdit

Reading the next newsletter draft I see a note about "If only the 640 reviewers did 8 reviews each". IT feels obvious that some number of that 640 don't edit wikipedia actively at the moment while there are another roughly 100 sysops who hold the permission who are active. Does being more realistic with numbers help? I don't know but even if every person who is active were to do that 8 edits we wouldn't eliminate the backlog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Yeah. The reviewers total is always a power law curve. I changed it to indicate that we need to pick up an extra 10% on our rate (on average) to slow the rise that we have been seeing over the last few months (20% would have it swing the other way). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 15:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
One of the things that annoy me is that I am coming across quite à lot of pages that have been tagged by users with the curation toolbar but have not marked it as reviewed. if the person is taking the time to go through the feed reading and tagging then why not mark them as reviewed. This kind of thing is fine when we are on top of the flow and we can afford for more than one reviewer to check it out but this is not the case today. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
If they are not confident about it, why not wait for another opinion? The quality of reviewing should not go down because of the backlog. Natureium (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis, Not sure who you are referring to, but we have a lot of new reviewers. With marginal cases or judgement calls new users sometimes feel more comfortable doing the stuff that they know and then waiting to see what other reviewers make of it. Once we have the reviewer notes system, they will be able to comment and let you know why they didn't mark it as reviewed. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I am a new reviewer but for true borderline calls I will not infrequently place tags and let another reviewer make the final decision - on the theory that two reviewers are better than one. The other scenario is that for some NCORP type stuff where I don't think it's notable, but it has some reasonable claim, and it has lots of PROMO I will do radical article trimming of PROMO and then hope the next reviewer nominates it. I do this because I find my revisions of content tend to stick better if I don't also nominate it for AfD and thus seem like I'm out to get the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll be honest with you if you have done the work of trimming the promo and tagging then that has to be sufficient to mark it is as reviewed. If I think an article should be nominated I tend not to remove any content first off because it's a waste of time if the article is going to disappear anyway, secondly because the promo content adds weight to the nomination, thirdly because the ref bombing is also a good indicator of lack of notability and fourthly to avoid accusations of bad faith editing (I was accused in the past of doctoring the article to make it seem less notable and then nominating it) what I do though is look and analyse every single source and list them in the nomination. There are already some serious problems with the quality of reviewing. I have come across quite a few totally unsourced articles or articles with single sources that were marked as reviewed without adding any maintenance templates at all. At one end of the spectrum we have reviewers who tick just on a feeling of notability and on the other we have reviewers who are sure enough about the quality of the article to tag and edit the article but do not tick on reviewed. I disagree that a growing backlog should not make us be bolder. If we allow the backlog to grow because articles are being reviewed multiple times by editors with the rights we will end up having a backlog drive and have to really drop the quality of reviewing to get through it or exhaust ourselves to the point of nausea and give up reviewing. I think if we are honest we will admit that his is what happened in the past. Reviewing is a time consuming task and we are not enough active reviewers to allow ourselves the luxery of doing this multiple time on the same article IMHO. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Anyway on Monday I'm in for a minor operation on my shoulder but I'll be off work for a couple of weeks so in between binge watching sessions on Netflix and comfort eating I'll try and do a mini backlog drive. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I will occasionally tag an article (usually for notability concerns), and then not tick it "reviewed". I do this so another reviewer will know that I have taken a look at it, question its notability, but want another pair of eyes to take a look. But I don't do it often. When I review an article, aside from the usual review stuff (e.g. copyvio, notability), I also try to tag articles which have raw links, are uncategorized, have a single source (or simply need more sources or footnotes), and if it's a stub (or any of the other tags on the curation tool). Then I attempt to fix the raw links (most of which can be easily and quickly fixed using either reflink or refill), and categorize the stub. I come across quite a few articles which have been reviewed, but haven't been tagged when there is one of those deficiencies. I also agree with Dom that if I feel an article is promotional, I'll usually tag it for deletion without trimming it. I'll also try to add a reference to an unreferenced article if it easily meets one of the notability criteria (e.g. villages, if a bio is about a general -- there have even been a couple of bios about Oscar winners which had no references). Onel5969 TT me 17:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What % of backlog are marked as Prods, CSD or AfD?? How many are simply redirects? Are those numbers available? Atsme✍🏻📧 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Good question, that would be good to know, I assume ICPH has/knows a tool that calculates this? Polyamorph (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
That backlog # does not include redirects, but it does include articles which have been tagged for deletion. As of right now, there are about 80 or so articles in the list tagged for deletion (you can check the totals using the filters, simply click the button for "nominated for deletion", and it will give you the count without those articles). Onel5969 TT me 20:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Training videoEdit

In view of an upgrade to include the new features of the Curation system, We have been asked by the WMF how helpful new patrollers find the video tutorial. I personally think the video as created by Fabrice Florin (WMF) would be extremely useful to new patrollers and reflects the rest of the work that went into creating the Curation process. IMO certainly worth updating.

Please leave your comments here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Can you point to where we were asked this? Might be helpful context for me as I watch the video (again) and consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
'I' was asked - I just have a habit of using the corporate 'we'. The video is over there on the right → you can see it there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, I mean, aside from being a bit out of date, its pretty good. It would be good to have an updated one made after the work is done on the tools. Something I just noticed in the video is that the red icon in the info button actually did work at one point (when issues such as 'no categories' were present it would highlight this with a red circle on the info button). This feature was either removed or became bugged, because it has never worked for as long as I've used the tools. It was one of the Phab tasks in the wishlist though, so hopefully will get fixed. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, Fabrice (WMF) is no longer active, but Pine is very good at this kind of thing, and I would insist on a grant allocation if the WMF do not have the means to do it themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, Kudpung. I anticipate that the pilot for my video series will be completed in the first quarter of 2019. The primary subject of the pilot video will be how to create references with VisualEditor. If there is interest in having page curation be a topic for a future video, I'd be glad to add it to my list of potential topics. --Pine 03:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
So after watching the video I think it's good stuff. I would suggest, however, that it might benefit from being two or three shorter videos focusing on a particular element, such as navigating the feed and using the icons on the curation toolbar. Shorter videos could also make it easier to change as the information does. One father suggestion - is there an open source AI voice we could use? In this way making iterations could be easier since we wouldn't have to rely on a human narrator's availability/willingness as information/needs change and we wish to update the videos. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this is in the video (my speakers are broken) but can we try to also include a segment on using "MoveToDraft" as a middle ground between accepting and asking for deletion?
The video is already short, only 3:28, and that should not tax anyone's attention. Making multiple videos would probably be confusing. a new user only really needs to watch it once and they can always stop or rewind. For voice over see: See this. What does need to be added in the intro is: "Using the tools is easy and intuitive, but you should be already familiar with the guidelines on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol tutorial." The current full text is here. Somehow, the use of the New Pages Feed and its Curation tool need to be made more attractive and IMO placing emphasis on the video can help achieve this. (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Text solely copied from US government websitesEdit

The article USS Lead Superfund Site, created by a new editor, is almost completely copied from US goverment texts on the site. These are cited in the references but there is no indication within the article text that the text is not original.

Anybody got any idea of what to do here? It's my understanding that all this text is public domain, so there's no copyright issue, but there does seem to be a lack of attribution issue. Blythwood (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Blythwood, With public domain content, you don't actually need to attribute, technically. However, we usually have a copyright notice on the ref indicating it as a reminder so that nobody tries to CSD it as a copyright violation. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It isn't a copyright issue but a plagiarism one. According to Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, it does need to be attributed. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
JJMC89, I stand corrected, Thanks for the info. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The same plagiarism policy suggests having it noted in the citation is sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Marked as reviewed?Edit

This is probably a newbie question, but I poked around the NPP pages and couldn't find an answer. What is the purpose of reviewing ("marked as reviewed") user pages (including pages created via The Wiki Adventure), user sandbox pages, and pages such as common.cs and twinkleoptions.js? Thanks in advance. Schazjmd (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Schazjmd, There are a few people who like to patrol the userspace for stuff that shouldn't be there, marking it as reviewed serves the same function as mainspace reviewing. The New page feed can actually filter for userspace as well as main and draft space. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Curate Page Link Disappeared?Edit

Has the Curate Page link under Tools disappeared for anyone else? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, It is only there on mainspace articles, and only if the curation toolbar is closed, and it is also renamed "Open page curation". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It was open for me but I was looking to answer the question that was open over at PERM but then saw it wasn't there for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".