Open main menu
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)



Since I am considering to apply to New pages patrol in the near future (when I have more time), I started educating myself on the tools and things around, including Special:NewPagesFeed. Now, I have noticed that it stopped with WP:NPPREDIRECT, where now recreations from a redirect are not unmarked anymore as seen by the oldest list on the feed, as well on an example like Jurassic World: The Game which I re-recreated (after another user did it poorly) from a redirect yesterday. No review log for it, yet it has been reviewed by a Patroller. Opinions needed if it's just me or if someone else noticed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't test this as at the moment there are no conspicuously old cases in the queue (possibly some redirect/article switches are higher up in the corpus, but not easy to detect) - but as of yesterday, this was definitely still working for me. Will see what pops up during the day. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Jovanmilic97 I had noticed something around this with one article but didn't think enough about it to investigate it further. That is troubling. I have created a phab ticket. @NKohli (WMF): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Elmidae and Barkeep49! If this is actually true, it could be very bad because it will let recreations like these completely undetected. Things like Hytale recreation here [1] (was a redirect per AfD) also wasn't detected (I only saw it thanks to User:AlexNewArtBot/VideogamesSearchResult). It was all resolved thanks to an admin, but boy, this mess could have went so under the radar at that WP:PROMO state. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I've definitely seen something like this happen on a few redirects that I've been watching. Until this gets fixed we should make a point of keeping articles that we convert to redirects on our watchlist signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill Seems like this happened with An American Tail (video game) now as well? You reviewed it the first time, but you weren't able to do it this time but you had it on watchlist. Reads that it's patrolled already but it had been reviewed just once before the recreation. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
yeah, and a few other articles too. Which is a shame, because previously I usually backed off after the first revert to avoid being bite-y and territorial, letting another patroller take a look––now I can't do that anymore. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I do/did the same. Hopefully given the current WMF time on this it gets squashed fast. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill and Elmidae (or any others) - they're trying to figure out when this bug was introduced. I'm trying to find the last time I patrolled something from a redirect but I haven't been doing a lot of non-deletion oriented patrolling lately. Can either of you track down when the last time you know you saw something in the queue that was from a redirect? Particularly if it's since May 9th. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I went through my edits going back to late April and couldn't find any examples of me reinstating a previously created redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: wow, it's actually some time back; hadn't realized. My last one seems to have been on 8 May [2]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC) - Add: as I usually expect the back end of the queue to consist of such cases to a large degree, and I've been checking the back end daily since then, that may be a good indicator that no instances popped up after that time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae I agree with your analsyis. I was surprised to find nothing more recent than that and blamed myself for being a bad reviewer but perhaps the change which rolled out May 8 is what caused this issue. Thanks; I've updated the phab ticket with this information. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
() Howdy! We're working hard to get this fixed, but in the meantime you can monitor the log for Special:AbuseFilter/342 to identify articles created from redirects by non-autopatrolled users. Note that just because there's a hit in the log doesn't mean the edit went through, for instance Special:AbuseLog/24042523, which didn't save due to the warning thrown by Special:AbuseFilter/702. Thanks for your patience. MusikAnimal talk 23:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Called that filter out of retirement after three years, eh :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
MusikAnimal Elmidae Barkeep49 There is also this that shows literally every recreation from a redirect [3] (it noticed Peek A Boo Shahwaiz recreation that AbuseLog did not). Is there a chance it can be expanded to see all the things from May 8 onwards? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is another abuse by this, an IP user recreated Peek A Boo Shahwaiz that was deleted on AfD with the same content and references. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: Found all the lists that show redirect to article recreations that date back to May 8: by IP users [4], by Newcomers (fewer than 4 days of activity or 10 edits) [5], Learners [6]. There are a lot of Experienced users revisions so that list only goes to May 17 [7] Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Useful lists. And it's easy enough to check by colour whether the redirect has been reinstated, too. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There's many instances worthy of attention hiding under the first three links given above (the fourth is mostly well-considered housekeeping by experienced people). May I suggest that people do look into these on a daily basis, as I believe some already do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Announcement: enhanced patrol/AFC acceptance logsEdit

I bashed together a little tool to help in cleaning up after the latest instance of NPP/AFC corruption (output dumped here: User:Bri/COIbox87) and thought it may be useful to open it up and help stop paid spammers from infiltrating NPP again.



  • Determining the creator of each draft requires one API query per draft. Sortable or filterable lists for anything right of "Size" are hence difficult. You're also not going to get more than 50 entries per page.
  • It isn't possible, as far as I can tell, to filter out redirects.
  • Full tables can be generated on request.

Comments, bug reports etc welcome. I'm particularly interested in what else can be done to keep spammers out of new page patrol. MER-C 14:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I wish I had a good answer. I did some reviewing of their patrols and found most easily with-in norms and no "obviously incorrect" patrols that hadn't already been fixed. I did unreview some number of their patrols for further inspection but would anticipate many of them will end up being OK too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh. Hadn't heard about that. I would have said that current vetting procedures at WP:RFP/NPR should preclude bad apples from slipping in, but taking Stevey7788, apparently they got the rights only 2 months ago. Looking at the log, I would not be able to find any clue there of enabling spammers - the thing that stands out most is a rapid bunch of NPP reviews for Chinese constituencies, which are legit stubs. So I guess this is the tool to check existing suspicions, but not necessarily to generate them in the first place? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the third NPPer caught working for this sockfarm recently (Mgbo120 and Siddiqsazzad001 were the other two). I have ideas on finding possibly paid-for articles but it will be based on content only. MER-C 20:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
MER-C Hi, Thank you. I notice the tool above doesn't show the new articles when they are moved. Such as mine - [8], Draft:List of Vice Governors of Cebu and Draft:Governor of Cebu have been accepted and renamed to List of vice governors of Cebu and List of governors of Cebu respectively. Can it bee done? Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
That's because you subsequently moved the page in mainspace without leaving a redirect behind. They show as red links (third and sixth item). It is possible to follow the move chain within the API request budget, but barely. I'll look into it. MER-C 17:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
MER-C Hi, Thank you. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Since NPP userright, , and permission to use AFCH are not automatic, it should be manageable by greater watchfulness by those granting these permissions. The aspects left uncovered are 1. moving pages our of Draft space manually without using AFCH, but even these pages should show up at NPP. There are good faith users moving their own drafts to mainspace who are using Draft space to develop an article which they could alternatively have written in mainspace, just as there are good faith users moving from userspace drafts to mainspace. For AFCH, Ithink it needs to be discouraged, since doing it manually without knowing the exact manual procedure leaves left-over draft pages which tend to remain in draft space for 6 months, and are routined declined as duplicates, when they actually should instead be redirected to the new article talk page, as is done by the macro. Moving one own's work from userspace does not have these cleanup problems, and I would be reluctant to discourage a practice used by many good editors since the beginnng of WP. Since normal page moves require only autoconfirmed, perhaps that function should be separated, and moved to a higher requirement. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The API doesn't give me a magic way to filter for AFC acceptances. Moves from draft to main and user to main are the closest approximations. Yes, I agree there is good faith use of this functionality and it is encouraged, but both are also frequently means of ACPERM gaming by paid spammers. Speaking of which, that reminds me of another abuse pattern I've seen recently. MER-C 18:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome TemplateEdit

I thought it might be nice to have a welcome template to post on the talk pages of editors who receive the NPP Perm welcoming them and letting them know where they can get help (beyond the tutorial and such). It's designed to be substituted. You can see my work to date here. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea and nice work :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
{{New Page Reviewer granted}} already exists. It might be better to improve that template, or append the content of this one to that template as it sits in a set commonly used when the rights are granted - Category:User rights granting notification templates. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Cabayi, I think that template complements rather than supplants that template. It is designed to be a personal welcome rather than a reminder and caution about what the permission means. And I intentionally focused on material not included in that template for just this reason. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I get that. And I can see that NPR has more of a community than the other permissions. I'm not saying that the two templates need to be mushed up into one box, but the one template can have two boxes corresponding to the two templates as they now exist - one practical and one community/social. Being in presented together in one template will reduce the workload, reduce the chance that one or the other will be overlooked, ensure they're both delivered consistently... Cabayi (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm quite following your vision. Could you mock-up or do an example in someway? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing complicated. Take the two templates and make them one. Equivalent to...
{{New Page Reviewer granted}}
{{NPP Welcome}}
Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok so that's what I thought. It is a mashing of a kind :). I'm by no means ride or die on this front but I would still suggest that each template serves a distinct purpose. Granted is given by a sysop as part of the PERM process. Welcome would be posted by a member of the NPP community welcoming them into the community - most of the PERM granting sysops are not active patrollers (and in fact we have very few sysop patrollers these days). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Special:Permalink/899678728 - Does it really matter whose sig is on the template? Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I had in my mind from your preceding message. Again, not ride or die but I think one message from the granting sysop and one welcome from a member of the NPP community is great. If that happens to be the same person - fine - but frequently it won't be. But maybe I'm alone in thinking this and would welcome thoughts from someone who isn't the two of us :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sure it does, it's a welcome template, and it's designed to be personal. I agree with Barkeep49 that this should be separate from the permission granted template. – bradv🍁 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:NewPagesFeed not loadingEdit

See phab:T224693. Getting a fix out ASAP MusikAnimal talk 19:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I suspect this relates to the fact that the new pages feed appears to be AWOL at the moment, rather than the problem above? Nah, no one's kvetched about that yet :D --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Elmidae: Oh sorry, hah, yes, completely separate and more severe issue. Moving to new thread MusikAnimal talk 19:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixed! Sorry about that! This was a big patch that implemented phab:T189929 (showing a tag for previously deleted pages). I was sure something had to go wrong =P We also know how to avoid this issue with similar changes moving forward. Any pages created during the 3-hour downtime are still in the queue. Best, MusikAnimal talk 22:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Most obliged! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, thanks for your work on the improvements and for your speedy fix of this issue. I know I asked on phab but any sense of a timetable for T223828? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Potential issuesEdit

Okay, so back from vacation, and went to do some NPP. As usual, went to the oldest, and went to List of Karakuri Circus episodes, from March 8. After doing the review, went and took a look at other article creations from this editor, who does not have autopatrolled status. Several of the his newer creations appear to have never been reviewed, such as Amano Megumi wa Sukidarake!, Sōbōtei Kowasubeshi, MAO (manga), and Samurai 8: The Tale of Hachimaru, yet others, such as Ariadne in the Blue Sky, List of Mr. Tonegawa: Middle Management Blues episodes, have been reviewed (but within a 30 day window). My concern is that has something changed to the queue, and are new articles (like redirects) simply dropping off if they are over 30 days old? Also, there have been several articles which were turned into redirects, which have been turned back into articles by IP's, or editors without autopatrolled status, and they are not being put back in the queue. Any ideas? Onel5969 TT me 01:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back Onel5969,. As for the issue at hand, look up a few sections at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Notice!. I asked for an update right above this but so far haven't heard one. Hopefully more soon? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back Onel5969  . CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Automatically Patrolled RedirectsEdit

Hi all. If you weren't aware, I currently have a BRFA open (trial complete) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 38 for automatically patrolling redirects that are either:

  1. From "FooBar (disambiguation)" to "FooBar", or
  2. That only differ from their targets by accents/diacritics/capitalization

So far, no opposition has emerged to these criteria, and the BRFA (hopefully) should be approved soon. Along the same lines, I was thinking of what other criteria could be used to automatically patrol non-controversial redirects. What do other reviewers think of the following? Unless specified otherwise, all criteria would be in addition to the current rules, meaning that they would be case insensitive, etc. All examples drawn from unpatrolled redirects I came across, and for the scenarios that don't have many listed I wasn't able to find them on such short notice.

  1. From "FooBars" or "FooBares" to "FooBar" (plural to singular) (examples: Monatomic gases, Lincoln cents, Indian head cents)
  2. From "Foo’Bar", "Foo'Bar", or "Foo‘Bar" to "Foo'Bar" (different types of apostrophes) (examples: Michele O’Neil, Fran O’Leary)
  3. From "Bar, Foo" to "Foo Bar" (sorting name) (examples: Dobell, George)
  4. From "FooBar" to "List of FooBar" (or the plural forms thereof, redirects to/from lists) (examples: Vegan media)
  5. From "Foo Bar" or "Foo-Bar" to "FooBar" (or vice versa; differences in spacing) (examples: Ultraprocessed food, Ultraprocessed foods, Ultra-processed foods, GearGods)
  6. From "Foo v Bar" or "Foo vs. Bar" or "Foo vs Bar" to "Foo v. Bar" (different format of case names)

Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging some active new page reviewers: @CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Onel5969, Barkeep49, Arthistorian1977, JTtheOG, Rosguill, Sam Sailor, Wgolf, Cwmhiraeth, Ymblanter, Atlantic306, Elmidae, and CASSIOPEIA: your feedback is requested on the proposal above. Any further suggested criteria are also welcome. DannyS712 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I support all of these suggestions and would also propose
  1. Redirects from alternative capitalizations
  2. Redirects between different English spelling standards (e.g. Capitalisation --> Capitalization)signed, Rosguill talk 07:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Rosguill: Alternative capitalization is already covered. As for your 2nd proposal, it might be a bit trickier to do that generally. However, specifics like "FooSBar" -> "FooZBar" (or vice versa) with the change being "s" vs "z" would certainly be doable --DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Oops. I think the case you propose is a good enough start, and we can potentially think of more. Additionally, how does the existing diacritic functionality handle other letters with obvious ASCII analogs like ø, ß œ, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 07:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Only strings that differ in base letters compare as unequal. Examples: a ≠ b, a = á, a = A.

--DannyS712 (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, in that case there's a relatively small set (<100 cases probably) of characters we could uncontroversially substitute that we could add to expand that functionality. signed, Rosguill talk 07:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Sounds good - if you have such a list, I can look into the javascript for adding such a criterion. What do you think of the others? DannyS712 (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I support the suggestion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

* Comments From "FooBar" to "List of FooBar" - Stand alone lists need to be reviewed as they are treated just like any articles where by independent reliable are needed to support the content claimed just like any other articles even the subjects in the lists have article in Wikipedia except group sources are acceptable in list articles - see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Since I am here, I have a question (if the discussion has been raised and I missed it, I apology), will the redirect pages turn to articles be reviewed? My thought is that they should. cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, issues of sourcing would be dealt with at List of FooBar, this is just a redirect created given that List of FooBar exists. signed, Rosguill talk 07:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: (edit conflict) patrolling the redirect from "FooBar" to "List of FooBar" does not involve patrolling the actual list - that would need to be reviewed separately, and not by a bot. As for redirects being removed, they will eventually be added to the new pages feed - see phab:T92621. Until then, they are not added to the feed, but it makes no differences if a human or a bot patrols the redirect that is later converted to an article DannyS712 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712 and Rosguill: OK thanks for the explanation. Question how about names with different diacritical marks? such as "xxxxxx Sao Paulo" to "xxxxx São Paulo", could it be redirected as well? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@CASSIOPEIA: Already being dealt with, see criteria #2 of the current BRFA DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: ok, if apostrophes include diacritical marks. Thanks and cheer. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: could the bot review full of name of people such as Michael Joseph Jackson -> Michael Jackson etc.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: not really, patrolling "Foo Baz Bar" -> "Foo Bar" means that either every possible middle name needs to be coded as acceptable, or "Foo Expletive Bar" is also patrolled DannyS712 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, CAPTAIN MEDUSA one way this could be implemented would be if we could also scan the lead of the article to see if name variants are mentioned there and then match against those, but my understanding based on what's been said in other discussions is that this would likely require using a different bot that is set up to scan article text. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill: yes, it probably would require that --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably not a good idea as multiple disambiguated people might share a middle name, both the ones who already have articles and the existing red links. PamD 05:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that names of people do not make good candidates for automatic patrolling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Like the suggestions, I think it's a pretty comprehensive list of the easy stuff that can definitely be handled automatically. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Onel5969, CASSIOPEIA, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and Rosguill: I just finished an extended trial with 100 more redirects patrolled, and was asked to leave a note here. The pages patrolled are here. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Skimming through the log, the patrols look okay. There's a few, like Youtu be that are perplexing or unlikely redirects from typos, but ultimately I don't see any harm from approving them. signed, Rosguill talk 03:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Rosguill: Also, Quarry:query/36978 gives all unpatrolled redirects in mainspace. I'll work on adding new rules in future BRFA. Any suggestions are welcome --DannyS712 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking through the redirects, I don't see any issues. Nice work.Onel5969 TT me 14:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Onel5969, Rosguill, CASSIOPEIA, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and Barkeep49: I filed another one at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 48 for cases where the only difference is "The" ("The Foo" -> "Foo", "Bar" -> "The Bar", etc) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • DannyS712 - how about for "A" and "An" ("A Foo" -> "Foo", "An Afoo" -> "Afoo")? Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Onel5969: not all of those should be patrolled though - "An Foo" -> "Foo" is just wrong... I'd need to add a dictionary for when "A" or "An" is appropriate DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Right, DannyS712, didn't think of that, that's why I stay away from programming! Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

More bugsEdit

While patrolling redirects, I've noticed that oftentimes the redirect appears to show up in internet search results, even when it's a brand new redirect that hasn't been approved with no history as an article. signed, Rosguill talk 06:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill - It would be helpful to document these but I'm wondering if there is code to prevent this - i.e. do they actually have <noindex> attached to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please give example, without example it's not easy for one to assess the issue and give informed response. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ammarpad, it's difficult to give examples, because by definition these are redirects that I review shortly after finding this issue (although I suppose if there's a case that I nominate for RfD, then that one would be a good example). signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It is worth delaying your review and reporting the page here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree - this is what I was attempting to say but in a clearly too oblique way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Guy Macon, I'll do my best, although given that I'm patrolling from near the cutoff date at the back of the queue (unless the 1-month bug has been fixed, in which case I should probably prioritize other tasks), it gives a rather small window for people to follow up on my report. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Does the bug where the brand new redirect shows up in internet search results happen often enough that it would be worth your while spending a day working of the other end of the queue until you find a single example? I have a gut feeling that if we can only find a specific page that demonstrates the bug, we will find a subtle error in the raw HTML that causes it to be indexed by search engines. (No need to ping me; when I comment the talk page goes into my watchlist.) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspected live unpatrolled redirects 6/3Edit

I'll be updating this as I go about patrols:

signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I'm going through this, I'm noticing that several of the examples that at first appear to be indexed seem to actually just be matching against text inside the article (when I search with quotation marks around the entire phrase the results generally stop showing the redirect). signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Dayum, that's suspicious. Nice find... I wonder if Google et al might just be scraping the full database and ignoring the noindex tag? It's after all not much more than a polite suggestion :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of redirects that don't get indexed, so I'm not sure that really checks out. I suspect that some of these may just be Google applying a misspelling filter, plus Page Rank having learned at this point that if a Wikipedia article exists, it should be a top result (for instance, I'm pretty confident that DuckDuckGo and Google render search results of "Foo Bar" if you search "Foo-Bar"). However, that doesn't explain some of the examples... signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Guy Macon as interested party. I'll file a phab ticket about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I started typing up the Phab report and then stopped - it seems those redirects do have a noindex tag of a kind in their source code. Can someone with more up-to-date knowledge confirm that these are the correct kind of noindex that should stop Google/DuckDuckGo et al from indexing them? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Where is that? When I look at the source for [ ] I see no <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> in the <head> section of the HTML. Using HTTP Header Live,[9] I don't see it in the HTTP response codes either.
When Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing says "Articles younger than 90 days are not indexed", what method is it supposed to use? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Could you state the exact time you searched the HTML? I see you posted this message at 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC). The redirect was reviewed by UnitedStatesian at 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC) that's approximately 2 hours and 23 minutes before your comment. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I checked the HTML and HTTP headers withing ten minutes of posting. I can't do anything further until someone posts an example of Google indexing a page we say not to and the page stays that way until we have time to analyze the situation. Until then I am going to assume that there is no bug to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That means you have checked more than 2 hours after the page was reviewed. I don't think there's any bug here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, those are all the redirects for today (or for May 5th, depending on how you look at it). There were more NZ political career redirects, but I decided to stop including them because I think we have enough examples, and also I suspect those may be a case of the search engines legitimately finding the target without using the redirect (I also found one of those that DuckDuckGo pointed to the article for a related NZ politician to the one actually listed in the redirect). signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Can someone with a better idea of soccer notability have a look at List of foreign English Non-League players? Many of these don't rate articles as per my understanding (and accordingly are not linked), but being thus unsourced and probably unsourceable, should they even turn up on a list? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elmidae - I don't know if I have a better grasp of WP:NFOOTY, but I looked at it simply from a standpoint of WP:STANDALONE. While lists aren't necessarily required to have references, since "stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability... ", if there is no blue-link, there is no way to verify many of the list entries. I feel, as per WP:SALAT, that this list might be too specific, but I don't feel strongly about that. Another editor might see it differently. Bottom line, those without a blue link should be removed, imho. Or a valid reference provided.Onel5969 TT me 14:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that is a notable list - as LISTN as says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.". However, I would not mark it as patrolled given that it's BLP adjacent and has no references. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I tagged it as unsourced for now but did not patrol. If no sourcing for the unlinked entries turns up within a few days, I think this should go to draft (unless someone wants to shift it right away). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is a prime candidate for draftify (though I personally would manually remove the AfC tag as unnecessary). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:STAND should be sourced just like any article. I have moved to draft. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Opt-out of messages?Edit

I have little interest in receiving posts on my talk page from the tool. Is there a way to opt out of these messages? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No w/o getting into EFs. WBGconverse 10:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
EF's? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

BTW I am referring to the Curation Tool. It was not evident while posting here that the page is not about that tool (I arrived here from that's tools page). Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, This is the right page to ask about that. EF stands for edit filter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so then what's an edit filter? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz See Wikipedia:Edit filter - basically it's the thing that automatically blocks people from replacing the entire contents of a page with a bad word or something. Some of them block the edit entirely, some warn the person and then allow it, and some just tag the edit for human review. There's a list of them at Special:AbuseFilter. If you hang around WP:AIV enough you'll see bots reporting people who trigger certain edit filters (like the one that disallows replacing the entire contents of a page with obscenities) repeatedly. I'm not sure why Winged Blades of Godric thought one would be useful in this situation. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
We can create an EF with added_lines that matches the string Delivered via the Page Curation tool and page_id that matches 55157 and set to disallow. But, this's a bug and an EF is the worst way to treat the issue. WBGconverse 06:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maury Markowitz, there's no way to opt out of that message, but as an administrator you should not receive the message as the pages you create ought to be autopatrolled. But this shows something is not working as it should. The bug that was resolved some few months ago is clearly back. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
So I suspect I never saw this before because the bug was not in effect. In any event, a tool that posts to user pages without an opt-out strikes me as a Very Bad Thing. Feature request? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The message was not posted "by the tool," it was posted by a user "using the tool." The same way you cannot opt out of Twinkle messages, because the tool here is just an intermediary not the actual actor like how bots and MediaWiki message delivery work. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
To play a bit of the devil's advocate, shouldn't the opt-out really be auto-patrol? In this scenario that's what really should have stopped it. Otherwise we should want people knowing that there are things they can do when making new articles or things they can do to fix the new articles they've already made. We don't let people opt out of Twinkle warnings but do have WP:DTTR which again can be solved by having our new article "regulars" be autopatrolled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a good way of putting it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I am not sure what you mean. Maury Markowitz is an administrator, so a defacto autopatrolled. But the page they created was not autopatrolled due to the bug I mentioned (it was once fixed some few months ago) and the page had to be reviewed by another user and that's from where the curation tool message was sent. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. In this case Maury should obviously have not received the notification by dint of his autopatroll PERM (via sysop). Indeed what I was suggesting is that rather than have a way to opt out of notifications that the way to opt out of these is to be autopatrolled and they we don't want those who aren't to be able to opt-out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's clear indeed. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Enable page curation tools to be loaded on any pageEdit

In their continuing improvement as part of the wishlist the WMF is beginning work on this. Can people express how they would use the curation toolbar on articles that aren't in the queue? I know how I would use it but don't want to make a comment to the WMF about it if I'm not a normal use case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I think I brought this up at some stage. I would find it extremely useful. Sometimes there is a 'Curate this page' link in the side bar, but only sometimes, and I don't know what puts it there. Whatever, a link to curating pages should only be visible to New Page Reviewers, there is enough mischief done by the wannabe newbie 'patrollers' at Twinkle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for kicking off this discussion, Barkeep49. The way I understood this request is that it would be helpful for reviewers to have the tagging and deletion nomination tools on every page even though Twinkle does provide the same functionality as it is more covenient to have the same set of tools on all pages. Is that accurate?
The engineers brought up some technical challenges for implementing this. Basically, the toolbar right now assumes that every page belongs to the feed and exists in the PageTriage databases. Everything it does is based on that assumption. To make the toolbar independent of that will be a fair bit of work with potential for some unforeseen bugs. You can see the discussion on T207485. As an alternative, they suggested having a button to add any page to the feed. That will add the page to the database and then the toolbar will load, as it does on all pages in the feed. However, this can be confusing as pages will show up in the feed that are not necessarily new. Reviewers will have to make sure they mark the page as reviewed as soon as they are done tagging it, unless they do want it to stay in the feed. Insertcleverphrasehere mentioned this being an acceptable solution in the ticket in an older discussion. I'd like to double-check to make sure everyone is okay with that before we proceed here. @Kudpung, Barkeep49, and Insertcleverphrasehere: (and others) what do you think? -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I would find that very handy, among other things because it affords the capacity to un-review a page even if it is no longer in the feed. At which point it should go back there, so that would work out fine... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elmidae: Thanks! That's helpful. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
That's also how I intended to use it, though thinking about this and Kudpung's thoughts does suggest we need to have some established guidelines about this usage if/when the capability is built for us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This would be very useful. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems people have missed my post above: Sometimes there is a 'Curate this page' link in the side bar, but only sometimes, and I don't know what puts it there. Whatever, a link to curating pages should only be visible to New Page Reviewers, there is enough mischief done by the wannabe newbie 'patrollers' at Twinkle. That's all that is needed. No fuss. No RfC. Just do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft GuidelinesEdit

As mentioned above I think it would be helpful to have formal project consensus on how we use this new ability. I'm throwing out a draft for us all to tweak and then assuming we come to some agreement on wording we do support/oppose/etc and get a formal close so that we can point to consensus on the topic - basing this on how it's been useful a couple of times for me to point to such a discussion about patrolling (or not) articles up for speedy/PROD/AfD that we did late last year. Use of the curation toolbar on pages not in the new pages queue should be limited to use of its messaging/wikilov system for creators, article tagging, nomination for deletion, and for unreviewing articles that have been reviewed with-in the last 7 days but which are no longer in the queue.

Thoughts? Tweaks? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

KISS: A RFC would be totally overly bureaucratic and defeat the aims of improvement of NPR. In the past we have always managed to obtain minor but important enhancements done without throwing everything out for the non involved community to decide on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I quite agree that we should keep it simple and I of course do not mind being called simple by you given your experience and knowledge (and am always glad to see you participate in this effort at whatever level and way you see best). My attempt to keep it simple was to duplicate what we did here. Not a formal RfC but instead something which has etasblished clear consensus as a NPP community about how we should operate. Having said that I do, for the reasons above, defer to whatever you think best. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
KISS is a common expression and it does not reflect on you personally. This can be done quite simply without creating special terms and conditions for it because there already used to be a 'Curate this page' in the side bar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


I have been carrying out some research into Curation this morning, some of which is of the kind that only admins can do. While I notice that the backlog has begun to reduce (ever so slightly), I now have conclusive proof that reviewers, including some of the more prolific ones, are not always checking the new pages thoroughly enough, and are indeed only going for the low hanging fruit and missing COPYVIOs etc, despite the new ORES alerts displayed in the feed. I am not here to name and shame, but quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, the Latin is "Who watches the watchers". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".