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)


Contents

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)
There is nothing new about this

Barkeep49, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Elmidae, NKohli (WMF): It was mentioned here in 2012. It used to be in the left side bar, revealed when clicking on 'tools'. There has never been any discussion about removing it so it needs to be put back. Kaldari knows all about it because he developed the curation system. If Kaldari is not able to address it swiftly, please someone raise a bug at Phab. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, with your permission I will add this information to the existing phab task if you'd like (linking here in case you would just prefer to do it directly). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Please do, Barkeep49, you don't need my permission for anything - and draw Kaldari's attention to it. The less I have to do with Phab, the better. I only lose my temper when I go there (not with Ryan, but with some of the others). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Info addded. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles from redirects appearing in the queue againEdit

This bug has now been fixed and articles created from redirects are once again appearing in the queue for review. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2019Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn per discussion below. (non-admin closure) Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


– The page currently at Wikipedia:Page Curation has been superseded by the page at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help and has been marked as historical for a little under a year. It's strange that the active policy page is a subpage of a historical page, so I suggest we swap that around. Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help would simply be Wikipedia:Page Curation and the historical page currently at Wikipedia:Page Curation will be moved to a subpage that notes its historical status. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Solution looking for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Kudpung on this one for us the main page is typically WP:New pages patrol which links to all other active pages. For consistency reasons that Wugapodes mentioned I wouldn't oppose the move. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wugapodes, your assumption is unfortunately completely wrong. The two pages are separate tutorials for very different functions of the New Page Patrol. According to this,You haven't used the tools for well over 12 months, if ever at all, so I don't even understand your concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I think I now know what confused you. I don't know who put that extraneous banner there and I've removed it. I think everyone's efforts should concentrate on getting the backlog down rather than on solutions looking for problems. No harm though in keeping all the NPP advice pages on our watchlists and reverting any nonsense. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello New pages patrol,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Whoever wrote this: can we include a note about DannyS712 bot III in the next issue? Automatically patrolling uncontroversial redirects (already done a few hundred) to free up reviewer time for articles. --DannyS712 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, Kudpung pinging the newsletter sender. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

bugEdit

[1] the curation toolbar is making two headings whenever you tag something for deletion.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Is this consistently reproducible? If so do you have another diff? I'd be happy to file a PHAB about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I think it a one-time thing, it has not happened since. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't change settingsEdit

I am unable to scroll down on the "set filters" menu to the point where I am actually able to activate my selections unless I shrink the screen down to 80%. The green box to save my changes disappears behind the banner at the bottom of the page. My normal usual setting is 110% zoom. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, This has normally happened to me when I have only a few articles with my settings (e.g. I'm filtering the queue pretty finely). It is definitely an issue. Can you reveal which browser you've experienced this on as an aid for a PHAB report? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: If you set it to unreviewed pages nominated for deletion with no categories, you should get an empty feed, which you can use to test the issue. I have it on chrome, but not on microsoft edge --DannyS712 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I got this result without any active filters whatsoever. I am using Chrome browser on an Acer Chromebook 11. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I have filed the phab report (see box to right) and subscribed you to the ticket. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Updates from the Page Curation improvements wishlist projectEdit

Hi all! Quick update from the Community Tech team on the NPP improvements project. Last Thursday three of the requests were completed and deployed. These are:

Here are the upcoming tasks that we are working on in earnest:

You're welcome to leave feedback on the phabricator tasks or respond to this thread (ping me, please) or on the project talk page. The phabricator tasks (and comments) describe the exact changes that are going to be made for each of these tasks. I am also going (do my best) to keep the project page updated as we complete tasks. Thanks everyone who's helped this project along so far. You folks rock! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for your work! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this, NKohli (WMF), and all who are working on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
NKohli (WMF), Thanks to everyone involved for the excellent work. Much appreciated. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 15:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

July 15 updateEdit

It looks like a new project manager IFried (WMF) has taken over this project - Ilana if you see this perhaps you want to say hi? Additionally a few more pieces of this work have been finished and either are or will be rolling out. This includes the the ability to load the curation tools on any page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 16 update (Intro from new PM)Edit

Barkeep49, thanks for looping me into the conversation.

Hello, everyone! I'm Ilana, the new product manager for the Community Tech team. I'll be posting more updates soon, but I wanted to first introduce myself. I look forward to (digitally) meeting & collaborating with all of you. Thanks! IFried (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

New script for stub sortingEdit

There is now a new script available for adding/removing stub tags: see User:SD0001/StubSorter.js (docs), for those who don't like Danski454's stub-search. It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field, without using a hierarchy-based selection interface. Any feedback would be welcome. SD0001 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, will give it a whirl! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SD0001 for letting us know about this. This is a feature I always wanted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
SD0001, It looks super awesome. (sort of the idea that I had originally when I requested a script like this). I'm getting a 'cannot save' error when trying to add a German Politician stub tag to Sebastian Hartmann though. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: really sorry. Should be fixed now. SD0001 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Got that same error on adding {{Ant-stub}} yesterday; now it seems to work (at least on softball-related topics :). One thing: it appears there is no method to make the bar go away again, other than reloading the page, if you fire it up and then decide not to add a stub after all. Admittedly a bit of a corner case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You can test this on articles from this navbox, which contains all untagged stubs. SD0001 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The tool is really awesome. No one would need to patrol a page without using it. The next tool we need is one that puts project banners and BLP banners on the talk pages ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung - Have you checked out User:Evad37/rater? It's what I use to put those banners on the talk page.Onel5969 TT me 11:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up Onel5969, I didn't know about it.. It's very good and it works. BUT after installing it, the curation toolbar no longer loads in the pages in the feed (tried clearing my cache, etc). Perhaps someone can look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
That's weird Kudpung... didn't interfere with mine. Wonder what's going on. My issue with it, is that when adding parameters, it is somewhat inconsistent with the process. Sometimes you have to make sure that after adding the parameter you type in "yes",it) other times that box auto-populates. Regardless, hope you get the glitch worked out.Onel5969 TT me 11:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. The curation toolbar doesn't load at all now. Removed the js script, cleared the cache again. Someone look in to this please - I'm not a techie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
FireFox 67.0.3 (64-bit), MacOS 10.13.6. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah Evad37's Rater is the best tool out there for adding WikiProject banners. The issue Onel5969 describes is because of missing/incomplete TemplateData for many banner templates. @Kudpung: Are you are able to see the "Open Page Curation" option in the left sidebar under the "Tools" section? Click on it. After this, the toolbar should load automatically on other new pages. SD0001 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, and by the way, Thank you SD0001 - just used the tool for the first time. Brilliant. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Was the redirect cutoff ever fixed?Edit

So, one of the bugs that we found a month or so ago was that redirects for some reason had a 1-month NPP cutoff instead of a 3-month cutoff like articles. Is this still the case? I've been cleaning up the back end of the redirect queue, so there shouldn't have been any redirects even staying around for the full month, even if the issue has been fixed. If it's fixed though, I could cut back a little and work on article reviews more. signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, to my knowledge this doesn't have a phab ticket let alone a resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I think redirects should be subject to the same 90-day cut off as articles, particularly where the backlog is still ridiculously long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
phab task filed, I had mistakenly assumed that it had been reported along with the other bug fixes recently. signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A different kind of new page patrol backlogEdit

If any admin has time to spare, there's currently five open requests for page patrol permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, three of which are almost two weeks old, and one of which is for someone that is re-requesting lapsed permissions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done by Swarm signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

More eyes requestedEdit

On the pages just created by Liphakoe fc:

All are 1 or 2 sentence BLPs without any references. I don't know if I should tag them for BLP-prod, move them to drafts, or CSD them since I don't see a claim of notability. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Claim of notability is that they play for Liphakoe FC, a top-tier Lesotho club, though it isn't linked in the articles. I guess that satisfies N:FOOTY? I'd say BLP-PROD all round. PamD 10:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

NPP BrowserEdit

I am attempting to access the the NPP Browser, however I am getting an error that reads "503 Service Unavailable." I'm not sure if this problem is on my side or the server side, but I am leaving this message just in case someone knows what this is and how to fix it. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, it is indefinitely broken. There is a version that's insecure but accessible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

NFOOTYEdit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) around the NFOOTY SNG that some NPP may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, primarily these figures make me even less willing to review friggin' ball-kicker permastubs. This place is slowly turning into a badly maintained soccer registry :[ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Elmidae, I think it already turned into that a long time ago. I have nnever understood why soccer players get a page on the flimsiest of sources (a listing on the squad web site), when prominent scientists and academics who have made serious contributions to society have to jump through so many hoops. But as long as the Footy project lays down its own rules for notability, it appears we have to live with it. Such sports people rarely, very rarely, go down in history unless their name is Beckenbauer, Pele, Stanley Matthews, or Beckham. Perhaps DGG has got a suggestion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Kudpung, I have had the opinion for a while that some sort of cross-wikiproject consensus is needed to resolve this disparity. E.g. via a wide reaching request for comment or open review of wikipedia notability guidelines/policy. Polyamorph (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Polyamorph, Kudpung, Elmidae, I posted that discussion here knowing how some around here feel strongly about it. However the point of view you three are writing is not being expressed in that discussion right now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, so what's Levivich talking about over there then? What he says seems to make sense to me. Does anyone know the sum total of all sport bios and sport related articles? The best solution would be to fork off everything about footy (or even sport) into a new, separate SportWiki for whose content control we would not be responsible. Leaving only truly notable players in the Wikipedia such as the examples I gave, and people like Tiger Woods, Wimbeldon winners, Olympic medalists, etc. In some sports however, such as F1 motor racing, IoM TT, and professional snooker, the number of players is so small that they are all notable. However, I digress, here is not the place to re-invent notability, we are just supposed to apply the rules. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, You're correct. More accurate to say not being widely expressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(Thanks for the ping KP.) I like Polyamorph's idea and wonder whether it would be beneficial to have an RfC about what the purpose of an SNG is supposed to be (a predictor of GNG? An alternative to GNG? Depends on the SNG? Editors don't seem to agree on this.), and then based on that consensus, evaluate all the SNGs to see if they are meeting their purpose. Levivich 00:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: For as far as I know, the SNGs are clearly simply a way to easily get an idea if the GNG is likely to be met (some may be better at this than other SNGs). This is even explained in the NFOOTY guideline itself. Though an RfC may be helpful just son everyone is on the same page. --MrClog (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the feeling not everyone is on the same page about that, and not just at NFOOTY; in every area where I've recently participated in AfDs (admittedly not that many areas), I've found editors who treat SNGs as alternatives to GNG. "Keep, meets [SNG]" seems to be a common !vote. Levivich 18:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Barkeep49: and @Levivich:, I added a comment. Polyamorph (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems some stubbornness over at WP:NSPORTS, a denial that any problem exists regarding consistent stringency in notability guidelines across disparate subjects / projects on wikipedia actually exists, and an alarming resistance to anyone who makes the mere suggestion that even simple changes might be needed to said guidelines on the basis that they've been around for 15 years and we should have said something back then. Their actual words. "We've always done it this way", never a great argument... Polyamorph (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Everyone at WP thinks that we under-represent their own fields of interest, and over-represent those they think unimportant. The only rational approach to a group project is not to interfere with others' interests unless the result is actually destructive to the encyclopedia . WP is not paper, and the football articles don't harm the others. I have never read an article on a football player, here or anywhere else, and I probably never will. But the presence of those articles does not harm me. Nor does it give a bad impression to thos looking for something they think important --if they find what they want, why should they even notice what they are not looking for? What is destructive to the encyclopedia is promotional articles, because if we become a vehicle for advertising, we're no better than Google. In many fields, it is impossible to write about borderline notable subjects without being promotional, and those are these are the ones where we need to watch for notability.
Myself, I concentrate on improving and keeping articles in the subjects I think important. That, and removing promotionalism wherever it appears. That's enough work without challenging other people's harmless hobbies. I realized this from the effort I joined in 12 years ago against the attempts to articles on academics--a field where a majority of the people here think anyone not famous is unworthy of coverage. If I try to keep their favorites out, I know how they'll react to mine./
More generally, the relationship between a SNG and the GNG can be whatever the consensus at afds wants to make of it -- we make our own rules, we make our own exceptions. The practical notability guidelines are what we in practice actually do. And personally I would strongly prefer if we had binding SNGs for as many subjects as possible. There are many ways to waste time and effort and emotion at WP, and arguing over individual AFDs is high on the list. The more we can decide by rule rather than the erratic results ofarguent, the more we will be able to work in a positive way on the encyclopedia. I consider the best way to deal with this at present is not to change the guidelines, but rather to say that "presumptive" notability means a subject is notable, unless a thorough search in all practical sources proves there is nothing more to be found. (I am aware I may be a minority view in this, but I really urdge people to re-consider whether this position doesn ot have advantages.) DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I might agree with DGG about harmlessness for most topics, but I see harm to the encyclopedia in having thousands of non-notable footballer BLPs.
  • If the BLPs are inaccurate, they harm the subject. If they fall out of date–if our article isn't updated and makes it look like the player stopped playing years ago when they're still active–they harm the subject. If they get vandalized or otherwise manipulated, they harm and subject and they harm editors by requiring editor time to correct. I'm reminded of these conversations about the prevalence of disruption in the area of football: [2] [3].
  • I also see non-notable footballer BLPs as promotional. At the NFOOTY discussion, I posted links to a recent example of a new account, named after a football club, creating pages about players on the team (not notable, not properly referenced). The account got blocked, but the BLPPROD and CSD tags on those pages were cleared and they were sent to AfD, where more than a half dozen editors' time was taken up with BEFORE searches and such. They were all deleted. But that's promo; that harms the encyclopedia by needlessly taking up editor time. WP is not paper, but its resources are not infinite. Now the only reason those AfDs I mentioned resulted in a delete consensus is because the club played in a league that wasn't WP:FPL listed. If the league is FPL listed, we keep that kind of promotion. (Just take a look at some of the pending football AfDs right now.)
  • Then there's WP:COPYVIO concerns. Someone creates 100 articles about players from a particular club or in a particular league; the articles contain one sentence and a stats box, sourced to one statistics website (like Soccerway.com or WorldFootball.net). Raw data might not be copyrightable, but compilations can be (under US law), and if we're copying 100 pages from some other website and putting it on our website without adding anything to it, how is that not just stealing content? Part of the multiple requirement of GNG protects against copyvio by ensuring we are summarizing from multiple sources.
  • Finally, if we decide whether to have an article or not, based not on the sources but on our own judgments of someone's accomplishments, we are engaging in WP:OR, and that harms the encyclopedia, too. Levivich 18:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • All of those concerns can be applied to any article, and as for articles being unwatched many editors have 5000 plus on their watchlist so its not that hard to get everything watched. Promotionalism is a problem in every topic/subject. Straight statistics are not copyvio as has been tested in the US. Where I agree is the problem of the lazy one sentence stubs which actually disappoint the reader rather than enlightening them but the answer is to topic ban the mass creators of the single reference one line stubs imv, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPPDRAFT vs. AfC acceptance criteriaEdit

WP:NPPDRAFT suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace.

Primary AFC acceptance criteria is that the article is unlikely to be deleted at AFD. Based on my AFD experience, I beleive safe to say that an article about "a generally acceptable topic" is still not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. The other policy-based reasons for AFC rejection are severe NPOV and copyvio issues. I beleive NPP articles with these issues are usually disposed through G11 and G12.

My preference is that we strike the Draft option for NPP reviewers. I've been told, without supporting evidence, that moving underdeveloped new articles to Draft space works well. If so, perhaps the advice can be tightened up to mesh better with AFC policy.

I originally posted this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#WP:NPPDRAFT and have copied it here at Barkeep49's suggestion. Some additional background discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Move_to_Draft_space_as_an_alternative_to_deletion. Please share your thoughts. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've actually done a bit of work in both venues. I think the issue is that the AfC criteria is the one that needs altering. I think the bar "ulikely to be deleted at AfD" too low. When you combine that with the concept that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup (which is an essay, but not a policy - however, it is cited regularly), there are articles that clearly meet WP:GNG, but are in no way ready for mainspace. Case in point are articles about villages, or other entities which would meet WP:GEOLAND, but are entirely unsourced. Using the AfD standard, a patroller would simply tag the article unreferenced, leave a note for the article creator, and move on. That article then might simply be permatagged. Moving to draft seems to prompt better response than simply tagging, and encourages articles to at least be properly sourced. That being said, I don't think there's been a single instance where I've felt the urge to overturn an article which has been approved through the AfC process and send it back to draft (I could be wrong, but I don't think so). I have, very rarely, taken an AfC approved article to AfD (don't think it's been more than once or twice in the last 3 years). Having done AfC, and at one time been quite active in it, I appreciate the work that you and others do there. But in the end I think the draftify option is a valid and effective tool at NPP.Onel5969 TT me 16:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
We are not going to be able to resolve inclusion/deltionist tension here. If you think WP:AFC acceptance policy should be changed, let's talk about changing it over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. My problem is that WP:NPPDRAFT is worded in a squishy way that is difficult to apply consistently and is in conflict with the unsquishy AFC acceptance policy.
As for your claim that draftify is an effective tool, we first have to decide what effective means. If it means keeping marginal material out of mainspace, I agree, it is effective at that; the great majority of Draft articles are eventually G13 deleted. I don't think it is an effective approach to improving content. ~Kvng (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
A few points:
  • Are you using "AFC" as a shorthand for "newly created article" rather than "has been accepted by WP:AFC"? There's of course plenty of material turning up in mainspace that was directly created there and never vetted by AfC. Consequently it may miss AfC criteria by a mile. - Having said that, AfC-the-Process is no more failproof than NPP; I've sent at least four AfC passes straight to AfD. However those were notability issues, where assessment by an individual always has more variance. I don't think I've ever draftified an AfC pass, since draftification doesn't help with actual notability problems, as noted elsewhere.
  • I don't see a downside to the classic "undersourced, incubate in draftspace" move. The creator of an article has a responsibility to provide reasonable sourcing; if you can't be bothered to search out some minimal references, you are just putting the work on others. Maybe it's time to expressly codify that in the guidelines. Having the article handed back to you with a note saying "hey, some minmal effort please" is very often a useful and productive nudge.
  • Third, I think the NPPDRAFT formulation is usefully broad because among other things, it allows us to be helpful and kind. A frequent case is the student project that is moved into mainspace while in essay form complete with "Introduction" and "Conclusion", with references in brackets and rampant bolding. If the topic is notable, technically this could be left in mainspace and to the hope of gradual improvement. Practically it's going to be brutally cut down, unsuccessfully CSD'd, sent to AfD as "irretrievable essay, nuke it", and generally savaged. Alternatively, it can be sent back to draft with a friendly note explaining what needs to be done; and the author, invested in their article, will spruce it up in their own time and republish. This almost always works, in my experience, and almost in itself justifies the existence of this option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am an active AFC reviewer, when I say AFC, I mean AFC. I am an inactive NPP reviewer and know about all the stuff that gets dumped directly into mainspace.
  • The onus is generally on the community, not an individual author or editor to provide citations that demonstrate notability of something in mainspace (see WP:BEFORE). BLPs are an exception but I'm not talking about BLPs and I assume you aren't either. AFC is another exception but we're talking about treatment of mainspace here.
  • Have you tried to get an article through AFC lately? There's a 2+ month wait before you even get to enter the gauntlet. There's a different kind of pain available at AFC but I wouldn't call it friendly. There is no problem with offering authors the informed option to move their article to draft space. The article creation wizard has already given that option and they decided not to take it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A few more points: WP:NPPDRAFT suggests that "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but be far from sufficiently developed or sourced for publication." This is either bad or sloppy advice. We should not be moving articles that meet AFC acceptance criteria in to Draft namespace. - thing is, we don't. We move articles to Draft so that they can be declined or the creator invited to work more on them for a limited period.
The processes of NPP and AfC are closely related but are nevertheless as different as they are similar, their functions are however beginning to converge somewhat (which is what several users and I have been striving for) at least in terms of quality and application of notability standards and deletion criteria. The main difference is that NPP is strictly a triage (and please look that up if its military meaning is not immediately clear), and an official function, with the strictest criteria, while AfC is only a Wikiproject and not a policy, is more subjective, often handled by users with less experience (not obliged to have read WP:NPP or go through a vetting process), and can and does do some very easy fixes - but is still not obliged to. Nevertheless, neither system is a Field Hospital or a MASH for lazy article creators or ones who pretend not to understand our laws of creation, especially UPE and COI creators (see WP:BOGOF) - the WP:ARS is the best venue for such articles that might show some potential for surviving AfD. Note that this is not however an exercise in belittling the work of AfC which has now become, since the creation of the Draft space and the NPR right, a very necessary de facto official function.
The Draft namespace was created thus allowing the useless WP:INCUBATOR (where articles were left to rot indefinitely) to be deprecated. Drafts can be quasi automatically deleted G13 if they are not touched for 6 months, and this is good, but the namespace should not deliberately be used as a perma-junk repository or a backdoor route to deletion.
At the moment however, we simply just do not have the peoplepower to address them, and as clearly shown by the current backlogs in both systems where for example of the 700+ holders of the WP:NPR user right, only two (yes, 2) are doing well over 90% of the work.
We need fewer minor-rights hat collectors, and more truly active skilled and qualified AfC and NPP reviewers who can work quickly but judiciously through their respective article feeds - which incidentally are now both available at the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT is that promising but subjectively substandard NPP articles are moved to Draft space. From there the author would have to submit to AFC for review. I am concerned that these authors may never submit the draft or/because they don't know how to make the improvements requested by the reviewer. I have anecdotes from my watchlist but don't have scientific information about what happens to articles in Draft space. What I do know is that the collaboration that happens in Draft is limited to reviewers telling authors what's wrong with their drafts.
I don't think the solution to not having enough manpower to process our backlog is to throw the backlog over the wall into Draft space (where most of it is deleted 6 months later). But if you like that idea, you may also like this recent proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it would be an improvement to have the default move-to-draft process not include AfC instructions and instead include instructions for moving the article back to mainspace themselves. We'd still potentially have an issue with that becoming a backdoor to deletion, but at least we wouldn't be flooding the AfC process, and it would be clearer for NPP editors that this is an option to be used only when they think that the initial editor of the article in question can make the necessary changes by themselves. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd hope that the AfC notice could be optional in the same way that notification is. I find I end up removing the banner on some number of my DRAFTIFYs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I see - I hadn't understood that part of the issue was the perceived consequence of being dropped back into AfC as a result of the move to draft. That clarifies a few turns of argument above that I found puzzling :) Agreed, this is often not helpful. I make that a case-by-case decision, and usually I do remove the submission header post-move if it seems that the author is unlikely to run up against any AfC thresholds. The student-essay type cases in particular don't need that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng, I've already commented there, please follow the discussion. You'll notice also that nobody is advocating throwing the backlog over the wall into Draft space. For one thing, the only drafts that come to NPP are those that have been accepted by AfC. Any other new articles at NPP have been created by users who are already autoconfirmed. That's what I fought 6 bitter long years to get ACTRIAL through and ACPERM established and this very New Page Reviewer right created. You should have seen what NPP work was 10 years ago; the system we have today is pure luxury but today's patrollers don't appreciate it and we still have unsustainable backlogs. If the New Page Reviewers are doing their job properly, [I] know about all the stuff that gets dumped directly into mainspace sounds more like a rant than an objective statement. I know I sometimes throw sweeping statements into the pot, but but I think you are going to be in the minority in the discussions in all three venues. If you want to get a consensus, consolidate them or use the project that was created for the purpose: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I did see the old NPP, supported ACTRIAL and ACPERM and have participated at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. I'm going to take your advice and not open discussion about this in another venue. What I'm looking for here is to make a change to WP:NPPDRAFT so that it is consistent with AFC acceptance criteria because we shouldn't be putting stuff into Draft that already meets this criteria. Before proposing changes, I was trying to understand how WP:NPPDRAFT is used by NPP reviewers. I am getting the impression that it is used differently by different NPP reviewers. I guess given the squishy wording, this is to be expected. I will reply here with a proposal shortly. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng But AfC does not have any policies. Because I wrote WP:NPPDRAFT, the use of 'Move to draft' by New Page Reviewers is, IMO, clear and unambiguous, and the feature isn't actually used very often - and shouldn't be, it's not a catchall for NPPers who don't know what to do. On the other hand, AfC reviewers do not come under the same scrunity as NPPers and are often far less experienced, hence the disparity in the quality of their reviewing or the criteria they appply. It's not the Draft namespace that needs fixing, its the AfC reviewers. That said, not wishing to rule out your concern entirely, it would help if you could list some concrete examples of where you feel the 'Move to Draft' is not being used correctly, and make a suggestion for the syntax and semantics you would like improved at WP:NPPDRAFT. I realise that WT:NPP might seem like the best venue to discuss it, and I would agree, but nowadays this talk page here gets more eyes and comment for things directly pertaining to NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I can propose some improvements to WP:NPPDRAFT. There seems to be some openness to that. It doesn't appear that we're going to get a consensus here to kill it. Should I do that here or over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol?
Also, I think I used the wrong word, AFC has a criteria. Policy is something grander.
Also, I wasn't aware that NPP reviewers were better than AFC reviewers. What sort of scrutiny do NPP reviewers come under? AFC declines are checked by other AFC reviewers when an author resubmits. Accepts are checked by NPP and eventually by general editors and readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Kvng, the Draft is a namespace I was partially instrumental in getting created, replaced the now deprecated WP:Incubator, and as it is now essential for ACPERM new users, there is very little chance of getting it abandoned. The answers to the questions you are asking are all around you but you may wish to see what new Page Patrollers need to know, and then how they are accredited, and WP:PERM for how they get there (many of the applications are rejected). For AfC reviewer authorisation, see WP:AFCP - incidentally another original initiative of mine, which Primefac admirably takes care of. Some, but far from all, AfC reviewers are holders of the NPR user right. New Page Review is the 'senior' process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I can propose some improvements to WP:NPPDRAFT. There seems to be some openness to that. It doesn't appear that we're going to get a consensus here to kill it. Should I do that here or over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol?
Here is a proposed replacement Moving to draft paragraph. Changes are in the first sentence only: ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Moving to draft

A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic, but may have serious issues which do not meet criteria for speedy deletion but make the article likely to be deleted for other reasons. Such pages can be moved to the draft namespace manually. An explanatory note and link to the draft should be left on the article creator's talk page. The resulting redirect should be suppressed if you have the page mover user right, or tagged for deletion with CSD R2. The MoveToDraft script is a useful tool for automating this process.

I have implemented this proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
And I have reverted it. No consensus has been reached. Onel5969 TT me 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the new verbiage. Older version is more appropriate. Onel5969 TT me 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment That was a fairly bold implementation! Support onel5969's revert - that change requires serious consensus. I lean towards the current verbiage personally (i.e. the version onel5969 just reverted back to), but would be open to considering the arguments of others. Leave this open for a while, we don't want to rush a change like this. GirthSummit (blether) 00:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I beleive I have made my arguments above. I have tried to understand and merge the intent of the guidelines here with AfC acceptance criteria. I posted a specific proposal here and got no feedback for 4 days so it's clearly time to be WP:BOLD. Best I can tell, onel5969's objection is that the AfC accept criteria is too low. Girth Summit, this is the first we've heard from you in this discussion. There are arguments of others to review above. Which specifically cause you to support onel5969 on this? ~Kvng (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that there are arguments of others above, I have been watching the thread; most of it has been quite general discussion, not focussed on this specific verbiage. You ask your question in an interesting way though - I have to confess that what makes me want to support onel5969 is in large part this - Onel5969 does a significant proportion of the work at NPP, appears to do it very well, and if they are concerned about the change I think it right to give their view considerable weight.
More objectively, I think your new wording is tantamount to deprecating WP:NPPDRAFT. Draftify is useful for borderline cases where you think there is some useful content there, but the article as it stands is seriously deficient. Tightening up the language in this way greatly reduces the amount of grey area; I think that is what you are trying to achieve, but it leaves little but the black and white of AfD versus tag and mark as patrolled. Draftify is not an option that should be used often, but it's useful to have it available for certain cases.
However, as I said, I'd be interested to read the thoughts of more experienced patrollers on this specific verbiage, and am open to being swayed. GirthSummit (blether) 06:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is everyone familiar with WP:DRAFTIFY? Also WP:DUD and every editors right to not use draftspace, and how you must use AfD if opposed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The NPP BrowserEdit

This is/was a very useful tool, and I used to use it a lot. Rentier, its author, appears however to have more or less retired since March 2018 and hasn't edited at all for nearly 6 months. Would anyone be interested in upgrading the script to make it compliant with the current release of MediaWiki? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(I didn't actually know there was a functional version still up and running, as linked above by Barkeep49 - [4]. Not sure what makes this one insecure, but in the meantime I'm happy to use. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC))

Articles over 90 Days OldEdit

I just want to note that we now have hundreds of articles that are unreviewed and are older than 90 days sitting in the queue. This was a bit of a shock to me when I just discovered it and thought that this has perhaps snuck up on some other reviewers as well. After our big spike in the queue between April and June we seem to be headed back in the right directionoverall but the oldest side of the queue could probably use a bit more attention and so if you're doing some patrolling consider patrolling from that end. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Thanks for bringing this to attention. I'll try to help out a bit at the back in the coming days. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 22:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it needs attention. I try to hit 15-50 articles at the back end when I begin my NPP each day. I think we should all start there. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd go further: we should be focusing all of our reviewing on the back of the queue until we fall back under the 90 day mark. signed, Rosguill talk 07:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
They are likely coming from the AfC queue, but need attention anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, unfortunately the data doesn't support that. April 8 is the first date which has a bunch of articles and 6 of the 10 articles did start in draft/userspace and were moved later to mainspace. However if we go to April 17 (e.g. day 91) in the queue only 8 of the 84 articles started in draft space, 2 of them were moved that same day, and the rest were moved April 18, April 20, April 21 (x2), May 1, and May 2 (and none of them I'll note were AfC accepts). I suspect that general pattern holds up - the closer we are to 90 days the more articles there are yet to be reviewed and the greater percentage of which did not start off in draft/userspace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I patrolled some of them, and they seem to be coming genuinely from the queue. Probably we indeed need a drive.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is actually quite serious because there could be any amount of totally inappropriate content about to be handed to Google. The only answer is for our (sadly far too few) active reviewers to have a systematic drive at the back of the queue. It's my guess however, that a lot of them may be the more difficult ones that are getting left 'for someone else to do'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll try to do as much as possible in the coming days/weeks, in addition to my other edits at Wikipedia. I think organising a GOCE-like drive would be a good idea. --MrClog (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

17 JulyEdit

Two years and one month ago to the day, I wrote this essay which characterised the long and hard struggle that finally resulted in not one, but three victories for our NPP community: ACTRIAL, ACPERM, and the success at the Christmas Wishlist for Curation/New Pages Feed. The essay documents how negotiating with the Wikimedia Foundation is neither easy, nor fun, and how they need to be subjected to enormous pressure to accept that they are not only not always right, but very often completely wrong. Those of us who have been following the current WP:FRAMBAN affair will realise how in fact little has changed in the relations between this community of unpaid, unrewarded volunteers, and the salaried WMF staff - over 100 of whom are booked on aircraft and into luxury hotels in Stockholm for yet another junket next month. I won't be in Sweden, but I hope some of you will be able to come to Wikimania 2020 next year here in Bangkok and let me buy you a beer. Thank you everyone, who keeps NPP alive and running.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "New pages patrol/Reviewers".