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)

Curation MasterclassEdit

Hi all,

I like to work on the pages from the back of the queue, because they're often the most challenging ones. Often, however, they're really tough: articles with borderline notability that got recreated, content forks, movies or sports events with committed fans, etc. I think I could learn a lot from a group VOIP session with screen sharing where a small group of us go through articles one by one and agree on what the right action is. Who's keen? I'm in the Central European timezone, but for this purpose I'd be open to any time of the day or night on a weekend. Pinging likely candidates: @Insertcleverphrasehere, Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Utopes, Polyamorph, and Onel5969: --Slashme (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Slashme, this is an interesting idea and would be interested in supporting it, time permitting. I'm in US central time zone these days. signed, Rosguill talk 14:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree - it's a digital Editathon, and would really work great for NPP enrollees in the school. Atsme Talk 📧 14:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Not the most active patroller, but I'm in (if the time lines up)... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The idea of a digital NPP edit-a-thon is a really interesting one. I believe people generally edit most during their work days but obviously something like this doesn't fit in that format nicely. I'm wondering if it something like 15:00 UTC on a Saturday might offer us our best chance of getting people? We lose Australia/NZ but I think we get all of Canada/continental US/Europe. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally fine with that proposal; we can also consider doing multiple groups of this if we need more flexibility on time. signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Slashme, I like the idea, and I'd be able to join between 12:00 UTC and 24:00 UTC Vexations (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. However, my current real-life schedule doesn't really permit me to commit to specific dates and times. Would sure be interested in hearing the outcomes, however, since I almost solely deal with the back of the queue.Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea and I’d like to join in, esp when I’m in quarantine from 1-14 September. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If the time works for me, I'd also like to join to learn. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually really keen on this so I'd love to try it out tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Anybody who would like to join, please vote on the screen sharing / chat preference. --Slashme (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Slashme, I'm down for Jitsi but are you taking the steps necessary to host. I presume I could figure out the software I need to join but there's no way I can figure out anything new as a host before tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Jitsi works in-browser without any software for both hosts and other participants (although you can access fancier hosting features by downloading software and hosting a dedicated server). For our purposes the browser app should be enough. signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we use Wikimedia's service: Jitsi. I'll get a token and it's really easy to dial into: no special software needed. --Slashme (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I'm happy to host. I just had my first Jitsi meeting today. I didn't need to install anything and it "just worked™". The quality went downhill with 33 participants, but I think it should work well with a smaller group. If it doesn't work for us, I'll announce a fallback, e.g. Google Chat, and we can move across. --Slashme (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent idea, and for once I can even make the time. I'm in. Strongly suggest Jitsi, too - it really is the most hassle-free of current video conferencing options (also Open Source). One note: don't join on Firefox, that seems to have a tendency to screw up the microphone. Chrome works best for me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I was on Firefox (Ubuntu) and it seemed to work, but if there's an audio problem I'll switch to Chrome. --Slashme (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Great idea, would love to be part of it; however, I am in Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10) for such I would only available in weekend. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Australian Eastern Standard Time

Screen share 22 August 2020
Name Jitsi Discord Google chat Skype Zoom Zulip
Slashme  Y  Y  Y         
Elmidae  Y  N no idea?  Y  Y  N
Cassiopeia     N  Y  Y  N  N
Your name here  Y  N   

Meeting LocationEdit

@Slashme: did you get a ticket for Wikimedia meet? If not L235 might have one we can use as we're only a couple minutes out from 15:00. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, and Elmidae: Here you go! Sorry for the late notification! --Slashme (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, and Slashme: Whoa what? Don't tell me I bollocksed up my UTC calculation again. Aaargh, I did - added rather than subtracted... sorry guys, I just spent my time taxoboxing some algae and now have to jump into a work-related conference. Complete time-keeping failure. Let's do that again soon and I turn on brain beforehand? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae, no worries. Vexations, Slashme, and Rosguill have been having a good go. Some great discussion and this is probably worthwhile to do again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, that was a great success and I learned a lot! I'd love to do this again. I'm not going to be available for the next three to four weekends, but will be willing to host again when I get back.

Jitsi worked well, screen sharing was readable and audio was mostly fine. Was really great to meet Barkeep49, Rosguill and Vexations in person as it were. --Slashme (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think I will be active again with NPP by September end. I've been refreshing the NPP stuff step-by-step. Let me know about the next meet, and hopefully I will be able to join in. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Another glitchEdit

Recently, I found out about the issue with the page curation tool and auto-templating of users pages when nominating a page for prod or AfD. However, yesterday I was made aware of yet another issue with the tool. When you use it to send a redirect for discussion, it does not automatically fill in the target field on the discussion page. Another time I will be using Twinkle instead. Onel5969 TT me 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, at this point pretty much the only time that I use the curation tool is when I want to just mark a page as reviewed (and to look at the copyvio report). Even adding templates is a bit smoother with Twinkle. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Rosguill. Onel5969 TT me 17:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Given that this is so badly bugged, perhaps we should just ask the devs to remove deletion-related functions from PageTriage? There are a ton of things which twinkle takes care of (such as adding delsort listings, placing the tags at the correct location per MOS:ORDER, etc) that PageTriage ignores even when it's working correctly. Twinkle never uses newbie-language messages though, but that's something we could improve in twinkle. SD0001 (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

New football stadiumsEdit

Are proposed or under construction football stadiums notable? Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force/Notability#Stadiums and indoor arenas suggest they only gain notability once matches have been played. Anybody any thoughts on this? --John B123 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

John B123 I can give you some examples of stadiums under construction: UBS Arena, Sydney Football Stadium (2022), Agia Sophia Stadium, MSG Sphere at The Venetian etc. And proposed stadiums from your country Category:Proposed stadiums in the United Kingdom and from the USA [1] and there is also a full section. So yeah, they seem to be notable since years on Wikipedia! We even have stadiums that were never built. Rostadia2012 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
It says "Currently hosts or has hosted a Professional sports team". IF THE STADIUMS BELONGS TO A PROFESSIONAL TEAM, IT'S NOTABLE! It is enough to be built for a notable team, NOT TO HOST A MATCH. Rostadia2012 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
By your interpretation an under construction Wembley Stadium wouldn't have been on Wikipedia. Just saying. Rostadia2012 (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see how "If the stadium belongs to a professional team, it's notable" follows from the SNG - my reading also would be that it must host the team in actuality (i.e. be available for the team to play matches in). The examples given above all pass via WP:GNG through sufficient general coverage, which has nothing to do with this special guideline. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Elmidae By your interpretation an under construction Wembley Stadium/ The O2 Arena wouldn't have been on Wikipedia. Or the current UBS Arena! Just saying. Where does it say "it must be available for the team to play matches in"? Go to any lawsuit, they will only analyse the paragraph. And it says "Currently hosts or has hosted a Professional sports team". If the stadium is being built for a professional team (any sport in the world), it's enough, you can't attack the writing (it doesn't say it must host matches now). Plus it can be from the US, the UK or Mozambique. It does not matter, if Mozambique owns a professional league then it's qualified. Of course a stadium for a professional team gets decent, enough coverage. The rules have been the same for a lot of years. Rostadia2012 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat myself: The examples given above all pass via WP:GNG through sufficient general coverage, which has nothing to do with this special guideline.. The special notability guidelines supplement WP:GNG, which is generally harder to satisfy. If plenty of newspapers write about a stadium under construction, we can have an article. If they don't, then this SNG does not make it so we can (again, my interpretation). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
A failed stadium could have lasting notability so i agree with Elmidae. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


Okay, I'm a little rusty. How are we dealing with articles like Rolling Loud? I've marked it reviewed right now, since it doesn't seem overly promotional to me, but like GSS, I might have draftified, only it had been and then moved back.Onel5969 TT me 15:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

We're as divided about it as before, but the best bet is to leave it with a tag if it's notable or to take it to AFD if it's not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49. Onel5969 TT me 21:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Bengal potatoes Redirect to wiki cookbook?Edit

Working the really old end of the cue (2003)

Looks like all agree that the article should not exist.

Somebody converted Bengal potatoes to a redirect to Wikipedia cookbooks. Then an experiencd editor removed the redirect and put in text that says "this article does not exist" and then gave a link to the the recipe at wikipedia cook books. Is this correct or should it be a simple redirect or should it be completely deleted? North8000 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi North8000 - That was a bit of a sticky wicket, but I think Reywas' solution was a pretty good one. While it could have been sent to RfD, no harm in sending it to the cookbook.Onel5969 TT me 15:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Cool, but but is the current method of sending it to the cookbook OK? Not a redirect, but instead a note with a link? North8000 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I wondered about this one too. It uses {{Wikibooks redirect}}. The template's documentation states: This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikibooks and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title. The article hasn't got a history of recreation, so a simple redirect should be used? --John B123 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I dunno. I would think that it would be problematic in it's current form. Structurally, it is an article (not a redirect), but it's not an article.North8000 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a soft redirect, not an article. It is common practice to replace problematic articles with soft redirects to sister projects when applicable—see Category:Interwiki link templates for templates similar to {{Wikibooks redirect}}. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks@Lord Bolingbroke: I just leave it as is and mark it as reviewed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


Hi. I know that WP:NFOOTY and WP:FOOTYN don't apply to Futsal. What are the rules regarding Futsal notability?Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've looked myself but can't find anything specific so assume WP:SPORTBASIC is the guideline. --John B123 (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks John B123 - That's what I've been using, but thought their might be an SN I had missed.Onel5969 TT me 17:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


For the last few days Community Tech Bot hasn’t provided a report on top reviewers for the previous day, and the SDZerobot is continuing to list and sort articles that have been patrolled. Is this a replag thing or is something else happening? Mccapra (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

phab:T262239: replag due to maintenance — JJMC89(T·C) 05:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Mccapra (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI blocked an editor under scrutiny for page creationsEdit

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_creations_by_Soul_Crusher. The thread may end up deciding to review their mass creations. Someone was seeking input from NPP. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

College sports figures and WP:NCOLLATHEdit

Hi. I haven't seen any change on NCOLLATH, but of late there has been a spate of articles like C. J. Walker (basketball), which while well sourced are of the type which is of run-of-the-mill college athletes, who garner the usual WP:ROUTINE coverage one would expect. In the past, these types of articles would normally be redirected to the college team's page, but recently there's been a lot of pushback such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Burns. What's the current idea regarding these types of articles.Onel5969 TT me 16:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... I don't know. That's definitely a whole lot of text about some guy with a grand achievement of nothing much, but I'd say the refs in that section may satisfy non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Dude is named in the titles, at least. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Elmidae - Just realized I never thanked you for the above.Onel5969 TT me 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

New article created through AfCEdit

From Wikipedia:New pages patrol#The purpose of reviewing new pages: When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again at Curation. In many cases the AfC reviewer has autopatrolled rights, so after moving articles from draft to mainspace they don't appear in the NewPagesFeed. This seems to defeat new articles getting a second check after passing AfC. --John B123 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The assumption is that if a reviewer has autopatrolled rights, they likely won't be promoting pages that need immediate checks. I'm not super concerned about trusting autopatrollers with that. Wug·a·po·des 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Wug. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
One possible edge case to consider: say an AfC reviewer with autopatrol wants to promote an article that they think is borderline and want a reviewer to take a second look at. Can the autopatrolled editor add the page to the new pages queue without the NPR permission? signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes and Barkeep49: Surely other users with AfC rights are to be trusted too? --John B123 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's complicated. Yes, I trust AfC reviewers to not promote garbage, but the guiding principle is to meatball:LimitDamage. If a reviewer makes a mistake or misunderstands a policy, without NPP review it can be hard to catch and fix. Sending most AfC promotions through NPP gives us the chance to check that nothing is going wrong earlier in the pipeline. By contrast, editors with autopatroled tend to be prolific authors, long term editors, or administrators who tend to know policy pretty well. While these editors definitely make mistakes, my assumptions are that they (1) have been around enough to know the policies on article content and promotion, and (2) are savy enough to add tags and cats as they need to without putting that on NPRs. Wug·a·po·des 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I like that we have a place to involve editors doing important work but who may still need to be double checked owing to their experience level. That's AFC for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep49 and Wugapodes above. In practice, the standard for approving new AfC reviewers is lower than for new page reviewers. It's good to have a second pair of eyes from NPP check the work of these less experienced AfC reviewers. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
As you go through the queue, there are AfC reviewers you come to understand that they get it. There are others who make you wonder. Literally, just today, I reviewed an article which had gone through AfC which had 5 sources... 4 were press releases and the 5th was from a site associated with the person. There are AfC reviewers who I have never seen an issue with. Onel5969 TT me 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Has there been a fairly recent change around this? I've always understood that after an AfC accept there would be further work done by patrollers. If that is not the case then it puts the onus on the AfC reviewer to either categorise and cleanup or at least tag. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
From a quick look at some recent accepts it looks like if the AfC reviewer has "autopatrolled" or "New page reviewers" the article is marked as reviewed. Those of us with "New page reviewers" or admins can and do sometimes mark pages as unreviewed, "Add to the New Pages Feed" if we want to get a second set of eyes on, but I'm not sure if a reviewer only has autopatrolled they can? Also I don't think all reviewers that have these perms know that they need to either fully review or put in the New Pages Feed so AfC reviewers definitely need to be made aware if they have either of these perms it's their responsibility to either fully review and tag or put in the feed. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Update: needed less haste, turns out people with just "New page reviewers" and no "autopatrolled" do add it to the New Pages Feed needing review, so it is only those with just "autopatrolled" that are the issue. KylieTastic (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I do that fairly often, actually (un-patrol a draft I've accepted), if I feel it's a borderline case that could use a second set of eyes. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I too have done that. But it is correct that that if an afc reviewer only has autopatrolled they cannot. Would there be any interest in creating a second opinion page whether they have accepted or declined but think it's marginal? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, is there an easy way to get the numbers on users with Autopatrolled who also do AfC reviewing? I'd have thought that most people who fall into both camps could also be trusted with NPP - could we just give them the NPP flag and draw their attention to the issue, advising them to either do a full review or to mark as unreviewed if they have any doubts? GirthSummit (blether) 15:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, great idea. With some help from AntiCompositeNumber I have a list of people who meet that criteria. I will explore over the next couple of days their suitability for giving them NPR which I expect to be a yes in most cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, cool. Maybe we'll recruit some new NPP reviewers as a side effect :). Let me know if I can help with the contacting etc. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I got about half way through the query last night and found 5 people who had been active recently with AfC and who had autopatrol. I hope to finish going through in the next day or so. We can then see if it results in anything or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Page curation toolbar no longer appearsEdit

Hi all,

I am not sure if it's only me who is experiencing this bug. The toolbar disappears every now and then. It was appearing until yesterday and when I logged in today to review new pages it no longer shows. I logged off and logged in a few times but that did not fix the problem. Please can anyone advise how I fix this?.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In recent days I’ve found that instead of appearing at the top right edge of an article it’s changed to appearing bottom left. Sometimes. Mccapra (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If an article is not in the NPP feed I think you'll need to add it via "Add to the New Pages Feed" before the toolbar can be shown. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Is it or is it not available to restore from under the "tools" in the left sidebar on any unreviewed article? Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Pages keeping their patrolled status if created from an autopatrolled leftover redirect which has been tagged for deletionEdit

Is it possible to prevent this from happening:

  • You draftify a page and tag the redirect for deletion. Tagging a redirect for deletion makes it an article and not a redirect anymore. If you're autopatrolled, that page is marked as patrolled.
  • The user overwrites the leftover redirect with their article. The system does not notice that there's a new article there and the page just keeps its patrolled status.

I was not aware this could happen, but this appears to have occurred with the page Tariq Mahmud Naim, it even shows up on Google. It doesn't appear to be possible to un-patrol your own creations.

Thjarkur (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've had a similar problem in the past, but using the MoveToDraft script adds the page to my watchlist so it appears there if somebody changes the redirect to an article. On redirects that are created from a move by a non-autopatrolled editor and subsequently marked as patrolled, if the redirect is changed to an article the patrolled flag is unset. Could this feature be extended to redirects created by autopatrolled editors? Alternatively, pagemover rights could be given to autopatrolled NPP editors so articles could be moved with leaving a redirect. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

May articlesEdit

Great to see the number of articles waiting for patrol coming down so fast, but we still have some tough articles that have been sitting at the back of the queue since May. More eyes there would be very helpful. Mccapra (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, Hi. I started at the back of the queue, and have been through all the articles in March, April and May, and am now going through June's. The ones left are those I'd like other editors to take a look at. Will take a look at them again in a week or so.Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes I keep going back and looking at the same ones to try and make sense of them. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Same here. --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Similar to Township Units of ChinaEdit

Could an uninvolved editor take a look at the discussion Talk:Townships of China#Proposed merge of Similar to Township Units of China into Townships of China, and close it if you feel warranted? Thanks. Ping me if you do, and I'll take care of the merge. I'm tired of seeing this article in the queue.   Onel5969 TT me 18:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Now closed, thanks for mentioning. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Lord Bolingbroke, Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 03:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Churches in AbkhaziaEdit

Two editors, Nina1009 and ნიკოლოზ ზივზივაძე, appear to be bulk-creating articles on churches (and other buildings) in Abkhazia. Most of these are stubs with only one reference, , which is only enough to prove their existence and does not demonstrate notability?.

Should these be bulk-draftified? Can they be merged to a "Churches in Abkhazia" article? And with two editors, is there a coordinated effort to create these articles? If so, can it be informed about WP:Notability guidelines? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and posted about it at WP:WikiProject Georgia (country). Quite a few of these are probably notable but it will be difficult for people who do not speak Georgian to find sources. Spicy (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The ones I came across I draftified, as there is an indication that the government has named them cultural sites. A whole bunch of them have been prodded, which could be contested (at least on some of them), since there is a stated indication of notability (the cultural designation). Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I've draftified quite a few of them and also left a note on Nina1009's talk page explaining that all articles need to be referenced, but that seems to be ignored. The links to are being included as an external link rather than a reference. --John B123 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I came across a lot of these while stub-sorting earlier today. The single link seems to be not just to a map but a map of historic sites with accompanying text; the text of the articles is pretty much a rewording of the text on the map page. It looks as if they are recognised as national cultural monuments, like UK listed buildings or US NRHP, which would imply notability I think. They have articles in Georgian wiki. They need coordinates and further references. The creating editors seem to be adding good accurate categories to the articles.PamD 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The situation is further complicated by the maps being drawn up by the Ministry of Education and Culture of Abkhazia. Most countries do not recognise Abkhazia as a separate state and consider it part of Georgia. Edit to add there are 173 properties on the map. --John B123 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
If they are recognized historical sites (and pretty much every pre-1990 church building there is recognized as a historical site) they are notable. There is indeed an issue of Abkhazia being an unrecognized state, however, I suspect that all these buildings were recognized as monuments still in the Soviet Union and taken over by Abkhazia. Even if this is not the case, it should not matter, Abkhazia is bigger than many recognized states, and if they protect the monuments, I do not see anything wrong with it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I found this 2015 document, Cultural Heritage in Abkhazia, published by the "Ministry Of Education And Culture Of The Autonomous Republic Of Abkhazia" (Autonomous Republic Of Abkhazia is how the territory is recognised/named as part of Georgia). Whilst similar to the map, some of the entries are listed as "Status Of National Importance Monument", others are not. --John B123 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".