Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Active discussions
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)


QueryEdit

I'm not sure where to post this query so I'm posting it here. Over the past month, speedy deletion taggings have gone way, way down. Two or three weeks ago I took a photo of my laptop screen one day when there were 0 pages tagged for CSD because I thought that it was so unusual but I've seen it happen several times since then and there are frequently less than 10 pages tagged for speedy deletion at any particular time. Since many of the pages tagged CSD were done so by editors patrolling new pages, I'm just wondering what's going on. I know two of the most prolific patrollers received indefinite blocks this spring but initially that didn't have a substantial impact on the tagging, not like what we're seeing right now.

So, I wonder if patrollers seeing fewer problematic pages or are people taking time off for the summer or is there just less new editor activity? Just thought I'd pose the question and see if anyone had any ideas or even had noticed the change. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My guess based on my experiences with tagging this week would be more admins working CSD, in addition to the usual ones. DanCherek (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Liz, hi. Not sure what's causing the drop. Other than G5 CSD's, I usually average about 2-3 day, and the vast majority of those are either G11 or G12's. With the occasional A7 or G4 thrown in. Just checked my log, and I'm at 12 so far this month, which is just about average for me. And I don't think there are less new articles being created. We've seen a steady creep upwards in our backlog over the last few months. Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that possibility that it might be a difference in admin activity. So, if this is the case, pages that were tagged that might sit around for hours before getting reviewed and possibly deleted months ago are now being reviewed soon after they've been tagged. I know that prior to the pandemic, I checked out the CSD categories infrequently and I now check them throughout the day. And that might be true for other admins, too.
Those numbers help, Onel5969, as I know you are very active. Since I review G13 stale drafts, I've seen big swings in numbers of expiring drafts depending on the time of the year but that tells me more about what was happening six months ago, not this week. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Around 1250 pages were deleted on 5 June and around 1575 on 5 July. Most deletions go through CAT:CSD but some days could have boosted totals from discussed mass deletions or untagged mass speedy deletions. Having checked a few more dates, it seems like deletions are holding steady at 1500±300 over the last month. There must be a table somewhere of how many pages get deleted, who deletes the most and under which criteria (or must be able to be generated with proper queries). Techsmart people should know. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, where did you get this figure? I'm not disagreeing, I am just always on the look out for Wikipedia stats. I'd really like to know the number of deletions per criteria or deletion area. As far as who deletes the most, there is AdminStats for that but those numbers are cumulative so you'd have to do some work to break down this number on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And there is a fair amount of deletions done by admin bots.
I watch the deletion log and there are quite a few deletions through deletion discussions (AFD, CFD, TFD, etc.) but what many people underestimate is the huge number of image files that are deleted daily because they don't have correct permissions. But I'm getting off on a tangent. You caught my eye by quoting numbers! Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh I was counting from the deletion log, without filtering for anything. Just looking to see if there has been a change recently, which does not appear to be the case. Files add a bit to the counter, and occasional mass deletions add a lot, same as with pages. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the admin activity theory is probably it, as the new page backlog's current trend suggests that we've actually been putting in more work than typical in the last few days. signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your ideas, everyone. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yash KumarEdit

Can someone with admin or page mover rights move this mess back to the user talk of User:Pbk9f, It showed up on the back of the queue. Amazing what we find! JW 1961 Talk 19:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 my apology. I am trying to publish this page. any help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbk9f (talkcontribs) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pbk9f I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page now that it is fixed JW 1961 Talk 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draftifying and copyvioEdit

We've identified an issue regarding draftification and CopyPatrol, which is a tool that logs potential copyright violations found by EranBot. If a new article is flagged for potential copyvio, but a reviewer moves to draftspace without leaving a redirect or the redirect is subsequently deleted, Community Tech bot will mark the case as resolved because it thinks the article has been entirely deleted from Wikipedia, and it is removed from the list of open cases at CopyPatrol. Meanwhile, the draft is not re-inspected or re-flagged because no new text was added, just a page move. A task to fix this has been opened by Diannaa at phab:T286383.

In the meantime, if you are about to draftify a new article that has been marked by the bot for potential copyvio (which shows up in "Potential issues" in the New Pages Feed and in the curation toolbar), please be sure to also address the copyvio concerns or check with someone experienced in copyright investigations, so that it doesn't slip through the cracks at CopyPatrol. Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 has more information on how to handle suspected copyright violations. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about redirects created by page movesEdit

Are redirects which are automatically created by page moves marked as unreviewed? If yes, with me being a prolific page mover but not otherwise creating many redirects, would it help if I applied for the redirect patrol whitelist? Lennart97 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are automatically marked as unreviewed. I have come across some of your redirects, I think it definitely be worthwhile if you could be placed on the redirect patrol whitelist. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll file the request. Lennart97 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
One other thing, I believe that if you have the autopatrolled right, they are not unreviewed. Onel5969 TT me 21:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I figured, but I don't have that one, not much of an article creator :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio mirrorsEdit

Greetings.

I was wondering if you all think it might be beneficial if we were to start a list of WP mirrors, which would help us in our copyvio portion of NPP. I have a small list, and add to it as more are uncovered, but other folks might have additional ones I don't know about. FWIW, here are the ones I've found:

Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

meta:User:EranBot/Copyright/Blacklist is EranBot's URL whitelist, though it's written using regular expressions so it is a little harder to interpret. Sometimes you can tell whether something is copied from Wikipedia based on the structure and/or phrasing of the text — in those cases, I select a short snippet and paste it in the search bar, surrounded by quotation marks, to see if any matches come up. DanCherek (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
In addition to what DanCherek suggest I would also add that searching "wikipedia" in the chrome inspect element also can be useful. And of course there is everybody's favourite, [number] all over the text, with bonus points for an empty references section at the bottom. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Clairification at Wikipedia:Page Curation/HelpEdit

I was reading Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help and noticed this sentance in the Who can review articles? subsection: "Users will need to have been registered for at least 90 days, have made at least 500 non-reverted or uncontroversial edits to Article space (mainspace) and have a clean block log since 01 January 2016." This doesn't apply to me because I have a clean block log, but the way this is worded leaves me confused about whether this requirement started in January 2016 or whether it means anyone blocked since January 2016 should not be granted the NPP perm. I'm writing this on this page because this where the talk page redirects to. Clovermoss (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: that was added by Kudpung in this diff in October 2016. I'd assume "six months block-free" would be reasonable. This follows Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Guidelines for granting which is the actual guideline on granting - The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the information there according with the actual guideline. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Seyed Yashar TavakolianEdit

Can I get some more eyes on this one? The AFD doesn't have any votes yet. In retrospect I am getting a COI/UPE vibe. Maybe I should have tried G11 or draftify instead of AFD. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I tagged as G12 just now. My bad for missing that. I'll check for that before AFD next time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, there's a definite copyright violation, and most likely either a UPE or COI issue. If it's speedied due to the CV, then the AfD can be closed procedurally. Onel5969 TT me 23:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles with poor sourcingEdit

If a subject is an SNG pass, but has poor sourcing (such as only Soccerway, only a national parliament's bio webpage, or a Google Scholar pass but the only citation is the subject's own personal website), how would you handle it? Would you mark as reviewed, draftify, TNT, etc? I've been reviewing a lot of SNG passes for professors and politicians with poor sourcing lately, and I am receiving some conflicting information. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally if someone was a member of a parliament or other legislature and the only source was the official site of that legislature, I'd either pass them or tag it, wait to see if other sources appear, and then pass it a few weeks later if nobody else has. I generally avoid football bios sourced only to Soccerway as I'm less sure about the its reliability, but probably the same logic would hold true there. I realise others may take a firmer line. For other articles it depends. There was a whole swathe of China geostubs that were sourced only to an official database. Several of us pushed them to draft and the creator brought them back into mainspace without improvement. In those cases too where the source is official and we can be sure the article isn't a hoax, I'd pass it. You can't keep draftifying it and there's no point in AfDing it unless you think it's a hoax or a mistake. The real weakness is allowing authors who can't be bothered to source their articles to keep pushing them into mainspace over reasonable policy-based objections, but that's the task we've chosen to take on I guess. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Passing SNG is one thing, sourcing is another. If there are issues with the sourcing then I tag it appropriately. If the article has only one source, such as the soccer stubs, I tag it and if no effort is made to add sources then send it to draft. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Depends on how much time I have or what I feel like doing. I often search for sources myself and try to improve the article accordingly. But if I don't have time for that or am not in the mood for that I would tag it with something like {{more sources}} or {{refimprove}} or something like that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Try to find better sources, if you can't, consider AfD if you are very sure that it doesn't pass the GNG. This requires a gentle touch, and some personal experience, as some of the categories of AfD (such as Soccer/Football) will dogpile the AfD with "meets SNG" comments, even though the burden should be on the 'keep' !voters to demonstrate meeting the GNG. Only WP:PROF can be used in absence of the GNG (from memory; I've been away for a while), the other SNGs are just a 'indication' of what is 'likely' to be notable.
If you think it probably would be notable, you can either bomb it with a couple more URLs that you've found. Or, if you don't think it worth your time, hit it with the 'more references' tag, mark it as reviewed, and move on. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 02:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. So if something is an SNG pass, to avoid draftification, what is the minimum sourcing required? What # of sources? What quality of sources? Do they have to be GNG quality sources? This kind of thing is not in the flowchart or on WP:NPP from what I recall. Those two pages give the impression that notability is king. Draftification of SNG pass articles with poor sourcing appears to be something undocumented that many reviewers do (I've heard it in various places from 4 people now). –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, there is a rule of the thumb which some go by: WP:THREE, at least to minimally survive a AfD, and also at AfC, some of us would decline submission due to poor sourcing, also based on the WP:THREE. – robertsky (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Robertsky, isn't WP:THREE another way of saying WP:GNG? Surely articles that pass an SNG do not need to have the citations to pass GNG in order to be marked as reviewed? I dunno if it's just a mental block on my part or what, but I still feel very confused about this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: Articles that pass SNG still need adequate referencing to pass WP:VERIFY, otherwise you could establish SNG in the first sentence and then write whatever you wanted for the rest of the article. Whilst WP:THREE is often looked at as the minimum, the number of references is less important than the references verifying all the content. The quality of the references is also important, I tend to ignore blogs, social media etc when looking at the sources. Going back to your original post, bios on university sites are often written by the subject, or from information supplied by the subject, so are not the best of sources. --John B123 (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
John B123, I mean... two is the minimum; by a strict reading of the GNG, two is multiple. To rely on two, they do have to be really good though in my experience. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 02:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the quality of the sources is important, although certain niche fans would argue about it (and quite successfully at AfD, I might add, when they get other fans to chime in). For instance, an article on a music group with in-depth articles in the NYT and Rolling Stone, while two blurb reviews from Allmusic and Punknews don't hold nearly the same weight, imho. Onel5969 TT me 04:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose I have a slightly different opinion about these things. For me, I wish we could consistently get deleted obvious UPE/COI articles even if they look notable. For good faith contributions in the thick of deletionism/inclusionism debates though, I think we should act as gatekeepers, not quality police. That is what appears to be our mandate from what I've gathered so far. So, if an article meets an SNG, I would mark is as reviewed. It's up to the community at large to take care of whether it does not deserve a standalone article, whether it should be merged elsewhere. If it does not want us passing those articles, it should remove those SNGs. There is no community mandate for darftifying articles that already demonstrate through reliable sources that they are presumably notable. There may be room for maneuver in borderline cases. For example, a professional club footballer who has only played one or two matches meets NFOOTY but may get deleted at AFD depending on the participants, so you could defensibly draftify it if you wanted, demanding that community norm demands it meet GNG, but I would not do that for a player that's played many club games or has played an international match. There really is no community mandate for draftifying articles on notable topics just because they are poor; NPP instructions say to tag them even if they are completely unsourced as long as they are notable, and mark reviewed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Usedtobecool, good points for sure. I agree that it usually isn't worth banging your head against the wall at AfD trying to die on the SNG vs GNG hill. In the most egregious examples, where a search turns up nothing, I'll do it, but yeah, it's a tough one. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 03:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere - unfortunately, I tend to bang my head up against that wall. At AfD, a frequently cited principle is WP:NOTCLEANUP, while I subscribe to Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup, particularly the thought mentioned in the opening sentence, “the threat of deletion often results in some amount of cleanup being done to the article.”. I don't have a stellar % at AfD in my nominations, because often I am forced in the choice between allowing crap to exist, or taking it to AfC to either have it removed or improved. But I agree with Usedtobecool's methodology. From a NPP perspective, I think it also depends on how long the article has been in the queue. If there's an article, with even a single ref, and that ref substantiates the SNG claim (e.g. they pass NFOOTY, or they pass NPOL, etc.) However, if the sourcing is dubious, or unreliable, and yet notability is possible, then it should be draftified. Also, if there's an article which probably meets notability, but most of the article is unreferenced, and it has been tagged for weeks/months with more refs needed, then the choices should be to scrub the article of uncited material, or move it into draft to allow the article creator to add the sources necessary to pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 04:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    There really is no community mandate for draftifying articles on notable topics just because they are poor; NPP instructions say to tag them even if they are completely unsourced as long as they are notable, and mark reviewed. That's certainly not my understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT, if anything the opposite is true, articles should only be draftified if they are potentially notable. --John B123 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    John B123, mine too. If there isn't any indication of notability, than one of the deletion routes is the way to go. Onel5969 TT me 22:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

StubificationEdit

I have a suggestion to add to our tutorial regarding the process of stubification. I'm sure that you have all seen examples where this would apply. We might need to get a consensus over on the COI noticeboard before going through with a general recommendation for action to NPPs, but at this stage it is just to discuss and figure out if this is a worthwhile and/or feasible proposal. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Stubify notable but promotional articlesEdit

Articles written by editors with a conflict of interest often have severe issues. It may be heavily biased, full of original research, self-published or primary sources, press releases used in place of reliable sources, or contain so much promotional material that little else remains. If the article is exclusively promotional, it should be tagged for deletion per the G11 speedy deletion criteria.

In many cases it is clear that the topic is notable, but significant effort would be required to clean up the article; either to sort through a multitude of poor or inappropriate references for the few useful ones, because the writing in the article is so biased that it would need to be copy-edited line by line throughout the article, or else because reliable sources are used but the text they are referencing is not neutral in summarising the content of those sources. The effort required in these cases can be daunting, and in these cases it is often better to start over from scratch.

For new articles that are promotional or otherwise problematic (as described above), and where it is clear that the author has a significant conflict of interest and/or has engaged in paid editing, the following steps are recommended:

  • Remove the content of the article and replace it with two or more neutral sentences describing the subject. If these can be salvaged from the existing content, that can be done, but rewriting from scratch is preferable.
  • Add two or more reliable sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it with significant coverage. These can be salvaged from the article, but be sure to check them thoroughly if so. Add a references section and {{reflist}} template, or retain that section if already present.
  • An infobox may be retained if the content within it is neutral, though it may be paired down to the essentials.
  • Add a stub tag to the article.
  • Notify the author of the article of the COI editing guideline and tell them that you have reverted the article to a neutral stub.
  • If the author reverts your change, report the article at the conflict of interest noticeboard so that other editors can chose between the two versions of the article.

DiscussionEdit

Let me know what you guys/gals think. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle, but the issue would be in monitoring the article after marking it "reviewed". I also think that the sourcing needs to be enough to pass WP:VERIFY. While this is not a bad course of action on an individual basis, this could add quite a bit of work to reviewers in the aggregate (particularly the second bullet). Onel5969 TT me 04:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds a viable way of sorting out these problem articles, but I think it's beyond the remit of NPP. The queue is growing daily, for reviewers to have to spend a considerable time on a single article will only exacerbate the situation. --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I too wonder just how much stubifying is an NPP responsibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Korean biostubsEdit

In early May an editor created a run of dozens of bio stubs of historic Korean royalty. Many of them have been sitting in the queue since then. I have chosen one of the most poorly-sourced examples and sent it to AfD for consensus. If it is kept I intend to review and pass all the other royal consort articles. There’s no point in taking them to AfD individually since the same issues are present in all of them, and sitting in the queue for longer won’t do any good. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, well done. --John B123 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand the intent. My issue is that many of the remaining ones are so poorly sourced that some of them don't even have enough RS to show they meet the notability criteria. Your taking the sample to AfD has resulted in the article being somewhat improved. Most of these have been tagged for improvement for month(s), with no work being done on them. I went through quite a few of them, and removed all unsourced material, and have asked the editor to work on these older articles, rather than continuing to create new, poorly sourced articles, but to date, they have not seen fit to do so. That being said, I would never question either of your judgement in this matter. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
All royal consorts passed now. I’m not convinced they’re all notable and as Onel5969 says the sourcing is pretty dire but we have two AfDs resulting in “Keep” so far on this basis so I’m going to leave it to posterity or determined zealots to take them to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic StubsEdit

What's the consensus on all the Olympic articles coming up daily with just two sentences, "The person is so and so. He/She competed in so and so at the 2020 Summer Olympics"? These articles usually have no secondary sources, still, most of them are reviewed without any tags. What do you all think about this? What can be the right way to approach it? - The9Man (Talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Every single one will have a reliable source in the official Olympics website, which will verify nationality, sport, birth date, Olympic participation: might it be simplest just to find and add that ref and move on, given that Olympic participation gives a free pass for notability? Just a thought. PamD 19:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@The9Man, in addition to what has been correctly put together by PamD, I presume you have a particular editor in mind, but from what I can see, I may be wrong, I see their articles largely meet WP:PSA. Celestina007 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There were recent discussions at ANI and BLP Noticeboard about one editor's mass creation of Olympic stubs. As far as I can see they pass WP:NOLY and the (minimal) information in the article is verified by the sourses.
Of greater concern is another editor who has been for months creating stubs for otherwise non-notable athletes when their name has been added to a country's Olympic competitors list. --John B123 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
John B123 I generally don't have any issue with these creations since it is passing notability under WP:NOLY. My concern is what is the right action to do with these. PamD, Celestina007, So what you people suggest is to check with the Olympics database and mark it as reviewed and move on?
There are 11k+ athletes in this Olympics so WP:NPR will be flooding with more of these. - The9Man (Talk) 08:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@The9Man: No, I wasn't suggesting just "check with the Olympics database", but "check with the Olympics database and quickly add that record as an uncontroversial reliable source" before accepting and moving on. I'm not a regular NPP reviewer, I must admit, but it seems the least-total-effort way to handle unsourced Olympians: improve the article by adding that one easily-found source (either as a ref for the lead sentence, or as an External link "Olympics 2020 profile"). PamD 09:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Adding an extra ref to potentially 11K articles would be a mammoth task. Grabbing one at random, Meriem Mebarki, which is typical of these articles, the sourcing looks fine to me as it is. --John B123 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how many of these I've reviewed in the last two weeks, certainly over 100. Saw no issues regarding sourcing on any of them. I think PamD is only saying if there is no sourcing which shows notability. And I don't know what percentage of that 11k this would relate to. Usually folks who create these stubs (and I did my fair share when I was working on the redlink project), provide enough reliable sources to pass NOLYMPICS. Onel5969 TT me 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The OP didn't give any examples: I misunderstood their "no secondary sources" if this is typical. What's the problem (apart from WP:NOLY)? PamD 16:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Mass creation is, in some instances, disruptive behavior so there might be something to that. But from an NPP perspective these are very easy ones to patrol - verify that the person named has a source (even a primary one) verifying their achievement, tag as appropriate, and move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing and cleaning up every new Olympian stub for a few weeks now, with the help of some other NPP regulars. Most of them don't include a birthplace so I add the birthplace with a ref to the athlete's official Olympics bio along with the appropriate categories that are missing. I wish I could do more to each article but I prefer getting to each one and cleaning up the basics rather than fleshing out just a handful. I just wish editors would focus on quality > quantity, but I guess that's a different conversation. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The unsourced template for articles with general referencesEdit

As its documentation makes clear, Template:unsourced is used only for articles that don't have any sources at all. One editor – who I believe is among the most prolific NPP patrollers – insists, on the other hand, that an article counts as unsourced if it doesn't have inline citations, no matter how big its bibliography of general references may otherwise be. I've reached out to them, but this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Could someone please help clarify the point? – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that the most accurate template should be used. In the case of general refs without inline citations, that would be {{no footnotes}}. MB 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious too, but John B123 (sorry I forgot to ping before) is of a different opinion: User talk:John B123#Where the sources are. – Uanfala (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
FFS I tagged an article with {{no references}} instead of {{no footnotes}} six months ago because it wasn't clear that the "Literature" section was actually a general references section. The conversation was about whether an article needed inline citations or not, nowhere in that conversation did I say that an article with general references should be tagged as {{unsourced}}. It amazes me that you feel the need to tell somebody they did something trivial wrong six months later. If it troubles you that badly please take it to ANI --John B123 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I thought that pointing out a basic error would be enough and you'd get the point. And after you apparently didn't, I looked for the relevant automated summary in your recent contributions, and out of the 15 or so hits, I saw two similar uses of the unreferenced template that were from yesterday [1] [2]. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you or if what you actually meant on your talk page is different from I thought you'd said. – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to plead the fifth on this one, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia that is. Whether an article with no references but an external links section should be tagged {{no references}} or {{no footnotes}} is, on the overall scale of things, a trivial semantics issue. I've actually got more constructive things to do with my time than argue about it. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)--John B123 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".