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)

Marcela MitaynesEdit

Obvious WP:NPOL fail now, but given that she's the Democratic nominee for a Brooklyn seat in the New York State Assembly, it seems virtually guaranteed that she will pass WP:NPOL as of November 4, 2020. To pass as reviewed or not to pass? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave it in the queue until November 4. Whilst it looks probable she'll be elected, a lot can happen before then. --John B123 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"a lot can happen before then" - which would likely make the page a WP:GNG dead-cert. :-)
In case you've missed it, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield is edging toward a rethink of some aspects of WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have put money on it ending with a consensus like that. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Need for Better Docs: What does Curation/Patrol/Review actually do?Edit

The docs seem to describe the tools and the process fairly well, but I haven't been able to find what review/approval actually does. I think it sets a flag to allow search engines to index the page. Is that right? And as a page creator, how can you tell if the page you started has been approved? Paulgush (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Paulgush: yes essentially what it does is set the page to be indexed by search engines. Reviews will show up in the log for the article (which means if it's on your watchlist you'll also get a notice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you! Paulgush (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Paulgush: To see the logs for an article, go to page history and below the title is a link "View logs for this page", which will take you to the page log, which includes page reviews. --John B123 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@John B123: Thanks for that. Looking at the page I recently created on Gabi Le Roux, I'm confused. When I view all public logs and add Review Log and Patrol log, I only see one item, Page Created. And when I select Page Curation or Patrol Log that doesn't pull up anything either. Yet when I look at Page Information under Tools on the left hand bar, I see under Basic Information that Indexing by robots is Allowed. So, what is the current status of this page? Paulgush (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Paulgush:. Nothing shows up as the page hasn't been reviewed. I've marked the page as reviewed and then unreviewed. If you look at the logs now they should show up. I think (although others with more knowledge might be able to give a more definitive answer) "Indexing by robots" refers to internal bots not external ones such as Google. For example, you can add {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} to the page to exclude Citation bot.
Going back to the article, it needs a few more references to show notability as per WP:MUSICBIO. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


Hi. During recent weeks I've noticed a few articles being moved into draft space with the edit summary "segregate paid editing", or something similar. Was there a discussion somewhere about this? I couldn't find anything on the wp pages regarding paid editing. Thanks.Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, there was this which if it had found consensus might have caused an increase in draftification of suspected paid articles, but it did not (it seems to me; hasn't been closed). But the discussion itself might have generated more interest or better education on paid page curation among our peers. Or they may be creations of Lapablo (30K edits) or TamilMirchi (50K edits) who were recently blocked for UPE. DannyS712 ({{noping}}ed) was working on mass quarantining Lapablo's articles, TamilMirchi is being discussed at COIN but it is quite a way from reaching any consensus to mass undo/recheck their work. Then there is our plain old WP:DRAFTIFY which allows for draftification of COI/PAID articles. And those are all the guesses I have. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, thanks, that was the direction I was looking for. Onel5969 TT me 11:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Glad to have been of assistance. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Military History Project bannerEdit

Hi I often need to add the project banner for Military History to article talk pages. As I’m not very technical I just go to the project page each time, make a couple of clicks and then manually copy and paste the project banner onto the talk page. I wonder if anyone has a fiendishly clever shortcut I could use, like just typing a couple of characters and getting the full template without all the rigmarole? Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, how about the WP:RATER? Works from the article itself, on blank talk pages and ones with some projects already listed (with any degree of detail). The actual answer to your question though is possibly {{WPMILHIST}}. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, you are probably asking for a template with all the parameters filled in. {{WPMILHIST}} is not it, so I go back to the first suggestion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It is something like {{WPMILHIST}} that I’m looking for, but specifically something that adds the full spectrum banner with all the options rather than just the short version. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra, I don't think that exists. You can copy the code that you usually need to paste on the article's talk page as a user subpage and then subst that userpage when you need to use it. For example copy the code to User:Mccapra/Mil and then add to article talk pages {{subst:User:Mccapra/Mil}}. That should work I reckon. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Lovely thanks for the suggestion. All the best Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Ben Davies (English rugby league)Edit

Could somebody have a look at this article. I feel it is under-referenced but tagging as such is being resisted by the creator. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

John B123, done. It's funny, some editors get bent out of shape when you go in and insert the cn tags like you did, while others get bent out of shape when you simply tag the article with an overall refs needed tag, like I just did. But you're correct, definitely needs more sources. Let's see how they like that instead. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparison toolEdit

Hi there. Occasionally I come across an article by a banned/blocked user, as I am sure we all do. Sometimes, there is another editor who has done some work, sometimes significant work, on the article. When that happens, nothing to raise any alarms, but sometimes I come across two more articles by a banned/blocked user, and the same other editor has done work on them as well. This can raise an alarm of a potential sock. Going further, sometimes those socks are real easy to spot, but sometimes, those socks have been around for a while, and they are much more difficult to spot. Right now, there were a few articles by the banned user, ShakiraS12, which were also edited by user FanDePopLatino, such as Thalía (2013 album), Thalía (2013 album), and La Luz (Thalía and Myke Towers song). Now, this could just be an occurrence of simply being a fan of the same artist, but it could be something else. I hate making work for other editors, and I also hate making work for myself, so is there a tool that can be used to compare the edit history of two editors, to see if their is some commonality? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That user has had socks with similar names, relating to Shakira, I believe? When you report suspected sockpuppets, check users do have comparison tools. Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Onel5969 Are you looking for this tool in anyway? [1]? - The9Man (Talk) 17:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The9Man, YES! That's exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying over existing draftEdit

Hi Meisam Yousefi needs to go back to draft since notability is not established by the sources provided. It was copied to mainspace and there’s still a draft version of the article in draft space. Can someone please point me to the directions for how to deal with this? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Mccapra, request WP:HISTMERGE and then draftify it afterwards. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

earwig copyvio detectorEdit

wasnt able to use today to check a few articles (maybe it takes longer to load?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, yes, it's known to do both: be down, as well as take a long time to load (it does all the checking while the browser shows no response from server and directly loads the results of the search, which usually takes around half a minute for me, but a lot longer on occasion). In my first attempt right now, it said that it has run out of the number of times it's allowed to query the search engine and so can only compare urls on the article with the article. That limited functionality worked fine. On second try, it gave full results; took around 15 secs to load (for a very short draft article). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, not sure if this will help, but I've noticed it helps to open earwig first and enter the page, rather than using one links to open and search. Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  14:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I use User:DannyS712/copyvio-check which is somewhat faster (sometimes). ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thank you for your responses,they're all helpful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The detector can run out of searches with Google which will limit its ability to work on a given day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazing work, guysEdit

Over the last three months or so, the backlog has been wrestled down by two thirds; most manifestly due to the efforts of Onel5969, Rosguill, and John B123. Big thanks all round, especially for not making Onel5969 slip back into the position of the sole finger plugged into the dyke! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Need helpEdit

Hello guys! I was reviewing the articles and stumbled upon a case which is new to me - so I need your help. The article AssadUllah Shah is obviously not ready for the mainspace, but the subject looks notable per WP:POLITICIAN. I wanted to move it to drafts but there's already a draft of the same article written by another user. Can you help me - what should be done in such cases? None of the CSD seems applicable... Thank you, best, Less Unless (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If the article is the same as the draft (ie a copy and paste) then I redirect the article to the draft and tag {{Db-r2}}. Where the article is different to the draft (as in this case), I move to draft with a number after the title, eg Draft:AssadUllah Shah 2. Regards --John B123 (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, John B123! Less Unless (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The person was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, so he is definitely notable. You can mark it reviewed. --Gazal world (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark it as reviewed. The only ref gives the date of election, it doesn't verify his term as an MP, his Presidency of the National Conference, being chairman of Jamia Masjid Kupwara for 11 years or his time and place of death. Notability isn't the only consideration. --John B123 (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Apologise. I didn't verify the reference. As I belong to India, I know he was a MLA. --Gazal world (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
So the article goes to draftspace? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's a new article, so I would leave it unreviewed at present, in the hopes that the editor (or someone else) comes and gives it a citation to establish the obvious notability. Or you could shoot the editor a message and let them know that it needs citations. However, they don't seem to be very proactive. Gazal world, you say that you know this person is a MLA, can you provide a reference?Onel5969 TT me 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I will try few days later. Happy (Hindu) New Year. --Gazal world (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol and global rollback (2)Edit

Follow-up to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Autopatrol and global rollback. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 72, pages and redirects created by global rollbackers in the main namespace will now automatically be unpatrolled (unless the user has local autopatrol or admin rights), meaning we will likely see a (probably small) rise of the number of pages in the queue. I encourage any reviewers who see global rollbackers creating redirects that can be patrolled uncontroversially to nominate them at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on Classes of British ships of World War IIEdit

So this article had me flummoxed. I was about to move it to Draft and then thought I'd ask here. List of Classes of British ships of World War II is just a first line noting intent to create and an under construction template. I'd think a sandbox or Draftspace would be the place to undertake such a major project, rather than banging it line by line into Mainspace. Would you agree - draft? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: I agree that is not the ideal way to write an article. However, as it is still being edited it shouldn't be draftified (as per WP:NPPDRAFT). Generally, I leave articles alone that are tagged {{Under construction}}, {{In creation}} or {{In use}}. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I also leave articles with those types of tags alone for a few days. After 3 days, if they are still there, and they have no recent editing activity, that's when I'll review them.Onel5969 TT me 17:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Alexandermcnabb: I certainly think this kind of incremental building is better done in draft, but we can't force that. As per WP:DRAFTIFY, we should not move articles to draft if they are actively being improved. In this case, the user is currently working on it and has also placed an "under construction" template. - Having said that, I yesterday moved a new article to draft because the author had left it in a completely unsourced state (and there were notability concerns), then stopped editing for eight hours. That was probably a bit quicker than is normally recommended, but complete lack of sources is one of the major sins hereabouts, and calls for a little more housekeeping zeal than other issues. However, List of Classes of British ships of World War II is a list article consisting of bluelinks only, so while sources will eventually have to appear here, verification is already possible. So I'd suggest leaving this alone and unreviewed for now; if the editor stops working on it for several days, draftification might be appropriate. Anyway, my two cents. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, all. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Too many questions from me, I know... but Macaloney's Caledonian DistilleryEdit

Okay, folks. So I nominate Macaloney's Caledonian Distillery for speedy deletion, dumping the yuletide message on the creator's talk page [2] - and then User:Deb bangs in a COI tag before User:John_B123 also nominates the thing for speedy. I thought User:Deb had nixed it, but it's still there. It strikes me we have been a bit Keystone Cops - lots of us pitching in to one page that was reviewed and then nominated for deletion, originally by li'l ole me, but which appears to have been multiply so - a waste of people's time, arguably. Could someone with more experience explain what happened here and how we can avoid this level of duplication of effort in future? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: From the page log,[3] the article was nominated by you for deletion at 13.26 and deleted by deb at 13.59. At 14.13 the article was re-created by the original author, which I tagged for speedy deletion. I've also added a {{salt}} tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That's what I suspected might have happened. Sneaky! And, of course, validates multiple eyes. Thanks for the answer/patience! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

NPP AwardsEdit

It's that time of the year (or actually was about 2 weeks ago when the NPP user right had its anniversary): time to give out our Reviewer of the Year award. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by last year's recipient, Rosguill who patrolled the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 65,518 Patrol Page Curation
2 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 63,790 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 18,850 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 17,220 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,756 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,142 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,849 Patrol Page Curation
8 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,651 Patrol Page Curation
9 Utopes (talk) 4,487 Patrol Page Curation
10 Mccapra (talk) 4,353 Patrol Page Curation

This year I am proposing that John B123 be named reviewer of the year. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue (down to around 3,000 articles) by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

I am also proposing that we give a special NPP Technical Achievement award to DannyS712. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition. I have used my very poor graphic design skills to make such an award but if anyone wants to do me better I would welcome it.

Award endorsementsEdit

Proposed that we name John B123 reviewer of the year and give a special technical achievement award to DannyS712.

  1. Endorse as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Endorse great work all around. John's level of contribution is astounding considering that they only started reviewing articles 8 months ago. Meanwhile, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that without DannyS712's help, consistently doing quality control on new redirects would simply not be possible. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. Endorse Hear, hear! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Endorse, absolutely. Onel5969 TT me 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  5. Endorse Great stuff! Mccapra (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  6. Endorse Wow. Amazing work from all. John's work over the short tenure is awesome and to be commended. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  7. Endorse Incredible work! Hughesdarren (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  8. Endorse. As co-ord emeritus and, for all intents and purposes, retired from Wikipedia. Thank you everyone for reducing this backlog. Please continue to keep up the good work so that I can retain some good memories of some of the things I got done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  9. Endorse Stellar work!! scope_creepTalk 09:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  10. Endorse naming John B123 as the reviewer of the year,   No comment with respect to the other part --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  11. Endorse both per all above Eddie891 Talk Work 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  12. Endorse I would like to thank everyone for all the hard work you put in daily!! It is recognized and greatly appreciated. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Retargeting redirectsEdit

When a redirect is patrolled, and then the target changes, it is currently not added back to the queue. I propose that it should be (and will write the code) - thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. --John B123 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
In principle this is a good measure, although I'm a little worried about the potential volume of work that this may generate. My understanding is that any changes would get reviewed by the whitelist bot as if they were new redirects? signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes for the target based checks, probably for the creator (or in this case editor) based checks, though I'll need to test that DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it should be, as this is not an uncommon occurrence, but I share Rosguill's concern. Onel5969 TT me 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap all around. So sure we should do this but I would suggest we do it on a trial basis. If we find that the volume is more than anticipated we should evaluate how much value this is adding versus other ways reviewers time could be spent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 Mccapra (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cardiac trialsEdit

Hola. Nominated this one Cardiac Trials for Speedy G11, creator removed the tag. Creator then seems to have remade the page Cardiac trials, presumably to clean the history, so nominated that, too. Struck me as a bit naughty? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Alexandermcnabb: I don't understand how the academic papers relate to the app or the company, and the other reference are source urls for the app. If it is notable I don't think it is properly sourced. I've moved it to draft. scope_creepTalk 10:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Content moved from mainspace to draftspaceEdit

We've had at least 784 new articles moved to draft space so far in November. I have done a spot check and I see many actions that don't seem to meet the requirements listed in WP:DRAFTIFY. Is anyone else watching this? What do you see? ~Kvng (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

With 784 articles I'm sure there are a fair number that don't meet the draftification criteria (I know I've found issues from reviewers with this in the past). However, my spot check of a few random articles that appear on that first page of the category didn't jump out anything super alarming. Would love to hear more about what you've found, and my email is open if you'd prefer to go that route so as to not name and shame. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I just did a quick audit of the list linked above, looking at 50 of them. There were 2-3 that I would have A7'd, rather than draftify, since they consisted of very little content and were wholly unsourced (such as Draft:1958 Lebanese presidential election). That said, the article's title did suggest they might be notable, so that would qualify for draftification. 2 others (Draft:Saba Gul for example), were draftified by their authors, which is completely acceptable. Bottom line is that out of the 50 I only saw 1 I might take issue with having been draftified, and in that case it would only be a disagreement over the veracity of the sources. Could you point to some examples, Kvng?Onel5969 TT me 19:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
How about Draft:Basin Bridge, Chennai, Draft:Liuqiang, Draft:Oleksandr Irvanets, Draft:Anglia House, Draft:Makai no Shuyaku wa Wareware da!, Draft:Piet Gerards, and Draft:Nino Lomjaria? All I had to do to find these was go to User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch and Ctrl+F for "Onel". – SD0001 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Draftify is only one of the tools in the NPP toolbox. Usually there may be several ways to deal with an article and different reviewers will chose different ways in this situation. For example, most of the time I will add categories to an uncategorised article, whereas another reviewer will add {{uncategorised}}. This doesn't make either way right or wrong, they are just different ways of dealing with an article without categories. The same is applicable to draftifying. Whilst I wouldn't have draftified the articles above, I don't see that it was wrong for Onel to do so, just a different way of working. --John B123 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten and sourced 1958 Lebanese presidential election, and while draftification was not a bad option given the article's state, had I come across it in the NPF I would have simply sourced it. But given the volume of reviewing being done, we cannot expect that from the reviewers and I'd say it was the right call for that specific article. I mean it had the desired effect, after all. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    Eddie891, Thanks. That was one I looked at yesterday because it's alphabetically early in the list. This touches on another (rhetorical?) question I have about NPP: Do we still allow new stubs in mainspace? I assume so. The easiest thing to do in this case would be to slap a {{stub}} tag on it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


I pulled out a dozen randomly from the category. My assessment is that only two of these (Draft:María Elena nitrate works, Draft:Rafael Delorme) appear to be accomplishing what we would hope from WP:DRAFTIFY.

Many reviewers are using the default MoveToDraft edit comment (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace) to justify the move to draft space. In most cases this does not apply to the move in question. Even if it did accurately describe the issue, this justification doesn't match up well with WP:DRAFTIFY criteria.

In many cases WP:DRAFTIFY appears to be used as a last resort for marginal and complicated cases. It seems likely that many of these will be WP:G13d in 6 months serving as a backdoor route to deletion which is very specifically not what it is intended for. ~Kvng (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft NPP edit comment Notes
Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Unnotable song
Draft:Emma Corrin incubate in draft, a red link is better than such a useless redirect Notable actress
Draft:Positioning theory Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Possible WP:NEOLOGISM
Draft:María Elena nitrate works Undersourced, incubate in draftspace 9 references have been added. Waiting for AfC review.
Draft:Kambainallur estate Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Unsourced stub. May meet WP:GEOLAND, otherwise merge to Kambainallur
Draft:Lucca Allen 2 article already exists in draftspace, incubate in draftspace, and merge the two. Draft:Lucca Allen 2 and Draft:Lucca Allen are substantially the same; we don't need both.
Draft:Expo 2027 Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Unsourced stub. Likely WP:TOOSOON.
Draft:Luke McGarry Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Has 83 refs
Draft:Rafael Delorme Segregate UPE WP:DRAFTIFY #4
Draft:Sietske Hoekstra Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Has 5 refs. Appears to meet WP:GNG, potential WP:BLP1E problem.
Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium Per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield County Infirmary No blanket consensus at this deletion discussion. How is moving to draft a good solution for this complex issue?
Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition Undersourced, incubate in draftspace Has 6 refs. Broadcast on GMA Network (company), may meet WP:NTV.
Thanks Kvng. A couple notes. Draftify shouldn't be used in place of AfD which seems to have happened in a few of these draftifications. I would defend the draftification of Emma Corrin as offering the chance for development that a simple redirect would not have. Successfully too in retrospect. I could also defend Expo 2027 as eligible for draftifcation under A7 events (because eligibility for a CSD is a reason that draftication is permitted) but I'm not sure I want to even if by the strict letter of the law I could. Draft:Luke McGarry does seem eligible given it's a pretty clear COI, which makes it draftifiation eligible. Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium was by procedure an appropriate draftication though like you I am skeptical of it as a deletion outcome in most circumstances. However it is a permitted outcome and so AfD participants can reach that consensus. I'm borderline on Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) in terms of appropriateness but I would have definitely redirected to Róisín Machine had I been patrolling it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I score your assessment as 5 or 6 out of 12 are justified draftifications. ~Kvng (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I can see how I'd given that impression, thanks for letting me clarify. I didn't see anything special to say about Positioning theory and Kambainallur estate but I'd suggest both of those draftificatinos are also within normal NPP bounds, so it's really 7 or 8 that I would find justifiable from my review. My feelings might change for the remaining 4 or 5 after hearing from the reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I draftified Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition. There are two presumed RIS. The other sources are Facebook, YouTube and a deadlink. As a tv station is is very likely to be notable, but it is also undersourced. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Mccapra, how much sourcing does it need? It is unlikely an AfD would be successful. Is there some higher standard being applied here? ~Kvng (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well if you look at the two presumed RIS (refs 2 and 6), ref 2 doesn’t mention the topic at all (it’s about events five years before the topic of the article came into existence) and ref 6 is essentially a press release from the owners of the tv station saying “there’s going to be a new tv station and here is our lineup of announcers”. So the article relies entirely on self-published sources (social media and a press release), with real news only being used to support the tangential detail of what happened to a predecessor station. I imagine that the likely outcome of an AfD discussion would be ‘draftify’. Mccapra (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it's beneficial that we are doing this. My assessment of this batch is below. In the following I am assuming that just slapping a notability tag on it and passing the buck to the next reviewer is not an option.
Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) - X - would have redirected to album
Emma Corrin - V - sourcing was excruciating at the time [4] and draftification seems like a reasonable way to allow the author to improve that; but it's a bit odd that the actual move to draft happened when the article had already been turned into a redirect [5]. Not sure I would have bothered with moving it at that point. Regardless, this seems sensible
Draft:Positioning theory - V - possibly notable, but completely unsourced. Sensible to draftify
Draft:María Elena nitrate works - V - same, just needs refs. Sensible to draftify
Draft:Kambainallur estate - V - same
Draft:Lucca Allen 2 - V - this is a non-standard situation, and Onel made a good call. Technically this qualifies for CSD due to duplication; draftification allows the author to salvage material and improve the existing article instead. Good judgement
Draft:Expo 2027 - V - an abundance of AGF here; I would have redirected to World's fair. Nothing lost by not having this in mainspace, however, so I don't have a problem with moving to draft here either
Draft:Luke McGarry - X - I don't get that one. There's apparently a fair few sub-standard sources in the refernces, but it's certainly not undersourced
Draft:Rafael Delorme - V - sensible under the circumstances
Draft:Sietske Hoekstra - X - doesn't strike me as undersourced. If there are BLP1E concerns, it should go to AFD
Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium - V - blanket AfD outcome that does cover this
Draft:GMA Regional TV Early Edition - ugh. Hard to say. I probably would have welched on that one :/
- so I'd say 8 good, 3 not, 1 can't say. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Barkeep's assessment on Emma Corrin, Expo 2027, Draft:Luke McGarry, Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium (as a result of an AfD discussion), Draft:Positioning theory, and Draft:Kambainallur estate. I would definitely have redirected Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) to the album, as per WP:NSONG, but if the reviewer thought the song passed GNG, then draftify is a valid option. In addition, Draft:María Elena nitrate works was wholly unsourced when draftified, so draftification was definitely warranted (as borne out as being notable, since it was worked on and passed through AfC). Draft:Lucca Allen 2 was sorely undersourced, and definitely a candidate for draftification. AfC editors, who come across duplicate drafts usually simply ask to have one deleted. Draft:Rafael Delorme is a clear case of UPE, and therefore draftification is an option. Onel5969 TT me 21:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd exclude Draft:Nopeming Sanatorium as the article was moved by the admin who closed the deletion discussion. Of the remaining 11, only one seems to have been inappropriate moving to draft. Two others I'd rather not comment on without knowing the logic behind the move. Redirecting Draft:Incapable (Róisín Murphy Song) may have been a better option, but that doesn't mean the draftification was wrong. I would also note that 3 of the 11 weren't sent to draft by patrollers. --John B123 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
John that does bring up a good point. Perhaps move to draft scripts, which lower the barrier to entry for draftification, should be limited to those who have NPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I agree with that. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Cross-venue faq or best practice guideline neededEdit

I'd like to see a FAQ, or some best practices recommendations added somewhere, for those of us who got here by the side door, trying to determine the best procedure in a given case. My path here was after draftifying A Nation on Trial based on the fact that it's been an unreferenced stub for eight years, but other approaches are possible. After notifying the creator (who remains only intermittently active), I considered whether to Afd it, place a {{merge to}} template, or add the Draft to WP:AFC. I ended up here, after noticing the {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} template added to the Draft by a bot, and saw this highly related section title.

In general, while the documentation at individual guideline, how-to, info, and help pages is good, such as at WP:AFD, WP:MERGE, WP:AFC, WP:MOVE, WP:DRAFTS, WP:NPP, Template:Unreferenced, and so on, they are targeted at individual processes (i.e. the solution), rather than at how to determine which path to take (i.e., the question, and analysis of it). I'm not exactly sure of the solution—a FAQ, maybe?—but it seems like there should be better attention paid in our documentation generally to specific use cases faced by users (e.g., "What do I do with this long-term unreferenced stub?"), and then a paragraph or two of the possible avenues available to address it, and in particular, how to choose among them, given the characteristics of the individual case. The editor can then proceed from the question, to a list of options for possible resolution, to whatever the best procedure seems to be.

In this individual example of A Nation on Trial, I'd still like to know whether Draftifying was a good idea, but it's not obvious how to make that call, other than relying on general experience and knowledge of how things go around here. But I'm more interested in addressing the general case, of which that is merely an example. Without necessarily having to lay it out as a guideline (I'm not interested in instruction creep), we ought to be able to get people to the right guideline more efficiently, given a particular issue they are facing. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, there are some guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, but these could possibly be expanded further. What to do with older unreferenced articles such as A Nation on Trial is a problem. From WP:DRAFTIFY: "The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor. (Old pages, and pages by experienced editors, deserve an AfD discussion)", so that's not really an option. Sending to AfD may not be an option as when carrying out the WP:BEFORE procedure you may well find the subject meets notability requirements. Changing to a redirect is an option if there is a suitable target. Normally with books you would redirect to the author, but in this case as there are two authors then that's not really an option either. That probably only leaves WP:PROD. (On a side note, when moving to draft it's best to tag the resulting redirect with {{Db-r2}} so it gets deleted.) Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @John B123:, thanks for your thoughts. As far as redirects are concerned, as this is a debunking-style book which addresses and attacks a single book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, that is the likely redirect target, if that's the approach taken. I'm kind of more interested in the more general topic of how to get from a use case to the right solution when many options are available. There's already a ton of doc out there, but they are more solution- than question-oriented, and we need more of the latter, imho. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(post-ec) I could have moved without redirect; I'll add the Db-r2. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Oh, you already did; thanks! However, on further reflection, followed my own advice above, and recast it as a redirect to the other book's criticism section. Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot:, it might be wise to request a history merge of the draft into the redirect to preserve the page history.
Going back to your point, some "what to do in this situation" pages would be useful rather than trawling through numerous pages looking for an answer. Probably better as essays rather then guidelines to allow the flexibility needed as every case will be different. --John B123 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@John B123: what if I just WP:SWAP the two, so the redirect gets the history? As long as we believe the redirect remains the surviving twin, this saves anybody having to do the HISTMERGE. Is there a downside, though, if someone rescues the draft, then we end up with a more complex histmerge later, so should we just do it now, just in case?
Yeah, essays sound fine, or an WP:INFOPAGE, like WP:MERGE is, as long as it's findable. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: If you WP:SWAP, you could blank the redirect once moved to draft and tag with WP:G7 to save any possible problems in future. --John B123 (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@John B123:, Thanks.   Done Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparative statsEdit

I’ve sometimes thought it would be useful to have a tool that allowed me to compare my actions with those of other reviewers. There must be average outcomes for NPP articles and it would be useful to me to know if I draftify a lot more articles than the average. I have an idea that I request speedy deletion less than a lot of other reviewers but I don’t really know. We’re all kind of flying blind which makes it easy to drift into bad habits. I’ve no idea whether my reviewing approach is in line with others’ or not. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Live review exerciseEdit

A while back Slashme, Vexations, Rosguill, and I got together and did some patrolling together. This let us talk about about approaches, share techniques, and otherwise engage in some great peer discussion. I think it was useful for those of us who were more experienced and Slashme definitely seemed to get a lot out of it as a newer reviewer. I'm wondering if there might be interest in doing something again on Saturday December 5 at 17001600 UTC (11 AM Eastern). We used Mattermost last time which worked alright. If we get a bigger crowd we might want to see if anyone has a licensed Zoom account to use so we could make do breakout rooms. If you're interested please sign-up below. When we get a little closer we can then start to work out logistics and details. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that 12:00 AM Eastern? (-5) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I hate UTC. My goal was to make it 11 AM Eastern (as I know from some other calls that the time works for a huge swath of the world, sorry Australia/New Zealand). So that does appear to be 1600 UTC. I'll fix. Thanks @Elmidae. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Zonestamp for this time (localized time for this event) KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm in! We might consider an approach where we cycle through reviewers, with the audience giving advice. --Slashme (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Tagging User:Ainali who has streamed live Wikipedia editing in the past. Any thoughts? Interested to join? --Slashme (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
BTW, just an idea, but it'd be handy if the more experienced reviewers (our celebrated top ten? :) could cycle a 'Review of the day' where they share an interesting, textbook or borderline decision they took on an article? Dumping it here as a section, for instance. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. As I haven't done much reviewing on enwp, I don't have many thoughts, but am happy to join as a newbie. Ainali (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Alexandermcnabb, this is a cool idea, although "Review of the Week" might be easier to keep up. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Rosguill I'll take weekly. I'll take all the guidance I can, although I'm starting to find my feet. Lower down the list lurk some gnarly decisions, though! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed yesEdit

  • Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I was unable to participate last time, plus just coming back from a long hiatus, but I'll make an effort to be available (9 am AZ time).Onel5969 TT me 01:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been away from NPP for a while, so this will be a good excuse to get me back into it. Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Gazal world (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll mark it in my calendar! Was thinking just yesterday that we should do it again. --Slashme (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ainali (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Look forward to it. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tentative yesEdit

Maybe/maybe notEdit

  • We'll see if I'm free by then. Support doing this even if I can't make it. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In principle I'm in but because of the nature of my work I'd find it difficult to commit to a definite day/time. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll be there for a long time, so I don't think it's a problem if people check in an hour or two late, or check out after an hour or two. --Slashme (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's a great idea, and I'd like to be there. We shall see -- Eddie891 Talk Work 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hope I can make it! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope to attend but I can't make any promises. I have to present at a conference a few hours after this event, so if the timing starts looking too tight I'll have to skip this. I'd like to attend the next one though! Mcampany (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm interested but this date/time doesn't work for meEdit

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