Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 → Archive 40

More bugs

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

Rosguill - It would be helpful to document these but I'm wondering if there is code to prevent this - i.e. do they actually have <noindex> attached to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Please give example, without example it's not easy for one to assess the issue and give informed response. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The very fact that I the trigger the results of new pages that are unreviewed that are being instantly seen on even search engines like Yahoo under particular conditions by definition disproves any opposition to the above theory, as it's too complicated to disprove. It has to be fixed, or you could end up with tons of misogynist pages being created by Cɒssiantð and his anti women brigade filling up google search results then suddenly we won't know what to do, 100% it didn't fit in another condition, and it both does and will trigger simultaneous pro woman editors as myself, causing the wiki critics like Larry Sanger to assume we are even more anti woman as he thinks (if that's even possible). Too many potential conflicts and complications will arrise if this ain't fixed forever with none of these bugs showing up ever again. signed by Kevin Gθʊərmʌŋ former admin, Wikipedian in Residence), I'm too kewl to have a signature
Ammarpad, it's difficult to give examples, because by definition these are redirects that I review shortly after finding this issue (although I suppose if there's a case that I nominate for RfD, then that one would be a good example). signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It is worth delaying your review and reporting the page here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree - this is what I was attempting to say but in a clearly too oblique way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, Guy Macon, I'll do my best, although given that I'm patrolling from near the cutoff date at the back of the queue (unless the 1-month bug has been fixed, in which case I should probably prioritize other tasks), it gives a rather small window for people to follow up on my report. signed, Rosguill talk 01:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Suspected live unpatrolled redirects 6/3

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

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

As I'm going through this, I'm noticing that several of the examples that at first appear to be indexed seem to actually just be matching against text inside the article (when I search with quotation marks around the entire phrase the results generally stop showing the redirect). signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Dayum, that's suspicious. Nice find... I wonder if Google et al might just be scraping the full database and ignoring the noindex tag? It's after all not much more than a polite suggestion :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of redirects that don't get indexed, so I'm not sure that really checks out. I suspect that some of these may just be Google applying a misspelling filter, plus Page Rank having learned at this point that if a Wikipedia article exists, it should be a top result (for instance, I'm pretty confident that DuckDuckGo and Google render search results of "Foo Bar" if you search "Foo-Bar"). However, that doesn't explain some of the examples... signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Guy Macon as interested party. I'll file a phab ticket about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I started typing up the Phab report and then stopped - it seems those redirects do have a noindex tag of a kind in their source code. Can someone with more up-to-date knowledge confirm that these are the correct kind of noindex that should stop Google/DuckDuckGo et al from indexing them? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Where is that? When I look at the source for [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorola_Milestone_4&redirect=no ] I see no <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> in the <head> section of the HTML. Using HTTP Header Live,[1] I don't see it in the HTTP response codes either.
When Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing says "Articles younger than 90 days are not indexed", what method is it supposed to use? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Could you state the exact time you searched the HTML? I see you posted this message at 23:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC). The redirect was reviewed by UnitedStatesian at 21:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC) that's approximately 2 hours and 23 minutes before your comment. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I checked the HTML and HTTP headers withing ten minutes of posting. I can't do anything further until someone posts an example of Google indexing a page we say not to and the page stays that way until we have time to analyze the situation. Until then I am going to assume that there is no bug to fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That means you have checked more than 2 hours after the page was reviewed. I don't think there's any bug here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, those are all the redirects for today (or for May 5th, depending on how you look at it). There were more NZ political career redirects, but I decided to stop including them because I think we have enough examples, and also I suspect those may be a case of the search engines legitimately finding the target without using the redirect (I also found one of those that DuckDuckGo pointed to the article for a related NZ politician to the one actually listed in the redirect). signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Announcement: enhanced patrol/AFC acceptance logs

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

Demonstrations:

Comments:

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

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

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

Footy...

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

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

Opt-out of messages?

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

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

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

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

Automatically Patrolled Redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUALITY of REVIEWING

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

For those who are wondering, the Latin is "Who watches the watchers". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles from redirects appearing in the queue again

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)

Enable page curation tools to be loaded on any page

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 Guidelines

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
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T207485

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)

Requested move 28 June 2019

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 2019

Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,

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)

I can't change settings

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T227006

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)

bug

[3] 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)

Was the redirect cutoff ever fixed?

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)

New script for stub sorting

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)

More eyes requested

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)

A different kind of new page patrol backlog

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)

NPP Browser

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)

The NPP Browser

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))

NFOOTY

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: [5] [6].
  • 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)

Updates from the Page Curation improvements wishlist project

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 update

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)

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)

17 July

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)

WP:NPPDRAFT vs. AfC acceptance criteria

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)
  • Thanks onel5969. I just noticed this and also thought it was premature. Functionally, the proposed wording nails the draftify criteria down to the first point (2a) of Wikipedia:Drafts#During_new_page_review - "would fail AfD". This ignores a number of other use cases, including the one I alluded to above: creation by an inexperienced editor who needs some pointers and a little time before throwing the article into the grinder. I'm not sure the wording requires an update, honestly, provided people take heed of WP:DRAFTIFY. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree Elmidae - although I do think that it would be nice if AfC got more inline with our concepts of what is ready for mainspace.Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 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 latter bears emphasizing. There's a temptation to shove articles back into draft a second time if the author just ignores the first draftification and re-publishes right away, warts and all. I've succumbed before and been rightly slapped for it. It's a one-shot approach, at least for non-admin/non-wider consensus purposes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. While this is only anecdotal, I'm guessing 99% of the time I draftify an article, there is no drama. Either the editor is no longer interested in the article, or the editor works on the article and gets it ready for mainspace. Also, draftify shouldn't be used instead of one of the deletion routes. I only draftify articles which appear to me to meet the notability criteria, but are simply not ready for mainspace in one way or another. Many times, if the editor is still interested in the article, they will contact me (either on my page, the article's talkpage, or on their talkpage in response to the notice I leave there). Well over 90% of those times, the article is made ready for mainspace, and moved back in. But if I draftify an article and it's moved back into mainspace without improvement, then I either take one of the deletion routes, or let another editor take a look at it. The only time I can remember this happening, however, was when another editor, who was pretty active at AfC, started mass moving articles into mainspace. I think I moved one of those articles back into mainspace, but without checking the history, so I didn't know that it had been moved out of draft. But many of those articles were moved back into draft (or taken to AfD) by other NPP reviewers. Can't remember the editor's name, but no longer see it at all, so not sure what happened to them.Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm learning here is that we don't want to clarify conditions that justify draftify. The preference is to not specify additional constraints. A wide gray area is desirable and "one reason or another" is sufficient specification. I don't think this is good process design but if there really is a consensus to operate this way, I guess that's the way things will operate for now. So, is there any significant support for my proposed changes above? ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Like Elmidae and Onel I prefer the longstanding version to the proposed version. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

unreview an article

I found that an editor took an existing dab page (New Story) and overwrote it with a new article. I restored the dab as it was, and then put the text of the "new" article into New Story (charity). I am technically the creator of the new article, and since I have autopatrol, it's not in the new page feed. I can't find a way to make it un-reviewed/patrolled. MB 01:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MB, right now there isn't. Rosguil helped you out. This is on the list of things to change so hopefully you'll soon be able fix this yourself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I had meant to chime in here earlier, but my internet conked out while I was unreviewing the article. signed, Rosguill talk 04:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, is anyone still keeping a regular watch on what's taking place at Phab for all the requests? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, yes I am actively watching every ticket hence my incorrect worry on meta last week. I gave input on the date range sort today after an update for instance. I know others are also watching and would hopefully pick up the slack if I were hit by a bus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles over 90 Days Old

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)
  • Just so I understand, any article created in the NPP pool prior to April 23 (if today's date is July 23) can simply get moved to the mainspace without review? Onel5969 TT me 02:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. They should be reviewed when we see them. We can't always catch them, but we should when we are able by whatever oddity of the system--and we should consider trying to get a query for unreviewed articles of any date. We shouldn't however panic: here have been many times over the years where the queue has gotten past 90 days. And until a few years ago, new articles went into Google immediately. Not even counting the higher standards over the years, there remain in WP perhaps a hundred thousand inappropriate older articles. (rough estimate--I think for the first 10 years we reviewed or autoreviewed only about 9/10 the articles, which would make about 400,000 unreviewed. & see WP:Size of Wikipedia for the size of WP in earlier years. Remembering the days before we had Draft, possibly 1/4 of them were never appropriate. Even if my proportions are 2-fold over estiates, that's 25,000 inappropriate) . DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Any article in the article pool older than 90 days has been indexed by Google (and for knowledge panel purposes this means indefinitely). This means that BLP violations, Spam, etc could theoretically be indexed. Ideally unreviewed articles (how many ever there are) which are in the queue would be less than 90 days old. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
DGG and Barkeep49 Thank you both for the info. Very enlightening. Onel5969 TT me 12:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens, BLP, subtle spam, and COPYVIO should be given the highest priority at the back of the queue. Always bearing in mind that rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Sloppy reviewing is not an option. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

co-ordinators

In the last NPR newsletter, it said "announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators". So has anyone stepped up to be one?___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In the last newsletter it said: 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. (The bolding is mine). If, and only if, the election takes place, candidates will be provided with the venue for putting themselves forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, thanks for the clarification. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Wishlist

Insertcleverphrasehere, do you have any idea what this means precisely? Phab is still an enigma to me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, It means making the NPP toolset available to be used on other language wikis. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, yes I know that, but is that the reason why they are delaying the work on it for us? I never understand all the different statuses and progress. Sometimes a non WMF dev just breezes into Phab and shunts smoething off into a holding bay. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, Not sure. Sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Time away from NPR

Hey everyone I just wanted to drop a line here and let y'all know I'm still around work right now has been very crazy and they have implemented mandatory overtime for the foreseeable future. This is why my NPP activity and Wiki-activity in general has been scarce in general lately. I will try to get back to normal as soon as I can. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

thank you for note--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

On masking IP addresses

The WMF has been thinking about the best ways to handle IP editing. The WMF-Community discussion is at m:Talk:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. This is of particular concern for NPP, AfC, and others who control new content and combat vandalism. Please consider joining the discussion and weighing in with your pros and cons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

—usernamekiran(talk) 14:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's in there somewhere, but a quick question. What exactly triggers the disappearance of the curation toolbar (or link in tools to bring it back). I'm guessing it (???) days and reviewed? 30 days? (as that's what special:new pages says and shows) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talk • contribs)

@Ched: yes, the curation toolbar stays for 30 days since after the page is marked as reviewed. But sometimes it gets disappeared in a week too. To bring it back, I usually add the code at the end of the address bar in the browser. I don't remember it now, and I am on mobile. But you can see that in a page with with toolbar. It is similar to the noredirect thing. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, do you have that link? I can't find documentation of it and recently had wanted to use it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Appending ?showcurationtoolbar=1 to the address bar will reveal the toolbar, though no guarantee to work all the time. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 and Ched: apologies for the delayed reply, even with this page being in my watchlist, and the ping. I was going to post the same code as Ammarpad has posted above. Like he said, it is unreliable. And for redirects, one can use &redirect=no This comes handy especially if you are on mobile, and dont want to switch to desktop view. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Criminal: France, Criminal: Spain, Criminal: Germany, Criminal: UK

I don't know what to do about these. These are clone pages from the same user and the third one came online like this. I have warned them, but their standard approach seems to be to just blank the talk page, so it's not easy to get a clear picture of how they've approached editing here for the last 14 years. I thought about proposing a merge but these also seem to be WP:CRYSTAL (will film). I've come here because I thought it likely that by the time other editors get to them, they might not get a full picture like this. Advice? Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the second editor I am aware of who goes heavy on the Netflix article creation. No time to do deeper thinking but I wanted to throw that out there as a thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, I see that they're currently all marked as reviewed despite there not being any corresponding item in the article's logs? What's going on here? signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, it looks like JTtheOG reviewed them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill I didn't even understand the question (too new at all this). But hopefully, Barkeep49's reply answers that. Surprised to find the Germany one was still going by France (I'd just assumed it'd be promptly corrected by the creator, so took the permalink quickly and left) in the lead sentence. I have just changed it. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 22:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, yeah Barkeep's comment cleared it up. You can find a page's logs (for all sorts of things, including page review) by clicking a link from their history page. For some reason, the patrol logging for these articles was not listed under "all public logs" but was listed under "patrol log". signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, I found the answer with Superlinks. I think it's by far the most useful script for NPP because of all that it shows you without leaving the article page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting up a merge proposal for the lot - there's as yet no need at all for separate articles, and the cast lists could well be accommodated in one place as well. It would probably be a good idea to advertise such a discussion on the relevant project noticeboards - mergers of freshly created content often suffer from lack of page watchers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User Curation logs

Best Damn Brewing Co. (now at AfD where it should be, whatever the outcome), is shown as having been patrolled by Vincelord. However, their Curation log shows a total of only 7 pages ever being patrolled, which was in Oct/Nov 2018, whereas Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers shows them to be one of the more frequent reviewers. Is this a bug, or am I looking in the wrong place, or just simply missing something? My own Curation log seems to be consistent and up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a bug – Vincelord just isn't using Page Curation. See his patrol log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh towns

I keep finding, in the new pages feed, articles on Bangladesh towns / districts where editors are adding and then immediately after removing redirects. Eg. [7], [8], [9]. I've asked User:Great Hero32 why they are doing this but they are not the only user doing this it seems. I can't fathom why they would be doing this, any ideas? In anycase, it's clogging up the new pages feed so unless there's a legitimate reason we should ask them to stop? Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

They've replied on my talk page. Seems to me to be an unnecessary burden on the new pages feed.Polyamorph (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
This is somewhat bizarre. I don't really understand the convoluted explanation they present, but my guess is that they may consider this the only method to create a new article - make a redlink, click on the link, then create the article following the prompt. Maybe if they were gently informed that they can just search for the term and work from the search result, or work from draft, this could be avoided? I agree that the current practice is annoying and borderline disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've left the user a note, we'll see if it stops them. I think the IPs are the same user logged out for whatever reason. Polyamorph (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial thoughts - autopatrolled redirects

Related to phab:T227250#5363710, I'd like to see what people think of a potential bot task to automatically patrol redirects (and only redirects) created by users in a pseudo-user group.

Proposal

A new pseudo-user group is created for users that do not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Autopatrolled but have a consistent track record of creating "clean" redirects.

Precedent

Prior to the creation of the autopatrol user right, User:JVbot/patrol whitelist was used to control a bot that would automatically patrol articles created by certain users. A similar set up would be used to control User:DannyS712 bot III, which would automatically patrol redirects created by certain users. Redirects that are later converted into articles are added back to the new pages queue (phab:T223828).

Discussion

Pings: @Rosguill, Barkeep49, MusikAnimal, Insertcleverphrasehere, Kudpung, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Elmidae, DGG, and Onel5969: --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What do people think of this idea? This is not an official proposal at this time, I am merely trying to assess if this should be pursued. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  • DannyS712, Sounds better than the current system where there are just way too many to patrol and many just fall off the back of the queue. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Conceptually that sounds fine to me. In general I think reviewer time is better spent on articles than redirect so ways of minimizing the redirect queue sounds like a win to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the bot still ran manually? I would not support this sort of pseudo-user group unless the mechanism to auto-patrol is fully automated. Let's say you create 200 redirects in the span of a few hours. You must wait for the human to run the bot when they wake up for them to be patrolled, all the while patrollers are reviewing those redirects unnecessarily. That aside, WP:PERM is as hectic to administrate as ever, so I'd be hesitant to add another thing for people to hat-collect unless we really need it. Maybe the list could be internally maintained here. But it's better I think that we attack the root of the problem. We'll find out soon if we can extend the backlog for redirects (phab:T227250), and phab:T92621 should help with the redirect->article->redirect scenario. We can also discuss increasing the rate limit on patrolling redirects, specifically, since that seems to be holding some of you back (and fast reviewing of redirects is realistic, as opposed to articles). — MusikAnimal talk 01:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea but impractical and invites too much new bureaucracy for little gain. I fully concur with MusikAnimal.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I too agree that this is not a priority. Articles are the priority. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with MusikAnimal, this user right may be for people to hat-collect. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal. I don't meet the requirements for autopatrolled but I do create a lot of redirects when reviewing request on WP:AFC/R. Or we could just restart the bot. Masum Reza📞 00:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio tool down?

Earwig seems to be down for me. ∯WBGconverse 09:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Transient or on your end? Works for me right now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It has been giving me spotty trouble, but if I click on it two or three times when that happens, it seems to go through.Onel5969 TT me 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It sometimes happens to me too. It works if I refresh the page. Masum Reza📞 19:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It's been down for several days. As a result, I've temporarily given up reviewing pages. Perhaps someone should report it to whomever is responsible for is upkeep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't had any issues with the earwig tool recently, which isn't helpful to you, but this notice has appeared which might help? "Update (16 August 2019): You may have seen an error about "JSON could not be decoded" recently. This should be fixed now. Please let me know if you continue to see it.". Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It works most of the time for me, and when it produces an error message, I just try again and am usually successful the next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Need someone to double check Draft:Charles N. Findley

Draft:Charles N. Findley is a memorial with a looong tail of material copied from another wikipedia article. I thought the subject was obviously non-notable, so I rejected it. I selected an option that I thought would link to WP:NOT but turns out it links to 5P (I think it's same difference but I don't know for sure). I don't know how to amend/take-back a review that's already posted, or where the page is that says which option generates what messages. So, it might take me awhile to find and read, to be able to know exactly what to do. I am also not sure if G11 is too insensitive for a memorial page. Advice, links to help pages I am looking for, appreciated. In the meantime, would someone care to look at the draft and fix anything that could have been handled better? Thanks!Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 15:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There is an obituary "Findley, Charles N. 1986-2017". St. Joseph News-Press. 13 September 2017. which can be used for biographical details if the article on the disaster has a section discussing the victims. Otherwise I would suggest simply explaining our notability requirements to the author as you would to any one else. If the bulk of the material is copyvio and from Wikipedia either add a dummy edit with attribution or, since is is unlikely to become an article just G11 it -- for the sake of sensitivity maybe leave a personal note rather than a template on their talk page. Cheers. Jbh Talk 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ayoub El Amloud - for example

I know I keep droning on about this in various places, but this article is typical of the reason why I totally fail to understand why academics are considered non-notable by default until they have jumped through many, many hoops, but the quarter million bios about soccer players are nearly all like this. Something needs to be done about this kind of SNG. Maybe I'm just biased - I am an extremely rare breed of Brit who can't abide soccer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the start of July which seemed like it might lead somewhere but ultimately I think people got tired of the conversation and nothing ended up happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I expect it's because the demographics of our readers and contributors somewhat match that proportionality of "interested in soccer" vs "interested in academia", and consensus in the end is driven by these proportions. Vide Pokemon and friggin' wrestling :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are a couple of other genres too that enjoy absolute minimal notability requirements, books and albums for example, but IMO, popularity of the subject is not a reason to debase our notability quality to almost nothing. Problem is that when this kind of thing goes to RfC, naturally all the soccer and Pokemon (what is Pokemon?) fans turn out to vote.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Embarrassing question

Okay, I should know this, but I apparently don't. I reviewed an article back on 8/10, Sharmin Sultana Sumi, restoring it as a redirect. The editor then created another article, by adding (singer) to the end. Regardless, I simply want to unreview the article, but can't get my curation tools to appear. I know there was a discussion about this just a month or two ago, but can't find it in the archives. Help. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharmin_Sultana_Sumi?showcurationtoolbar=1 would be what you want but because the article isn't in the queue it won't work... yet. I believe that the ability to load the toolbar on any article is coming out this week, but I could be wrong as I've lost track in my mind where they are with the improvements underway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Beautiful. Thanks Barkeep49. Onel5969 TT me 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Very disconcerting

I am asking Kudpung, DGG and any other AfC/NPP reviewers who may be interested to please review the cited sources listed in this diff. Please do not comment at that discussion or I will be accused of canvassing. What I need to know from our experienced reviewers applies to the sources only, and if they are indeed (a) RS, (b) the information is verifiable, (c) the sources unequivocally establish the Catahoula bulldog as a notable breed, (d) does not require any OR on the part of the editor, and (d) the information provided by the sources is enough to satisfy GNG. Once I see the results, I will make a determination if I'm going to continue as a NPP volunteer. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 01:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, the first thing is that Wikipedia does not categorize on whether a dog breed is notable. What we aim for is to establish if the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I've spent a precious hour this morning going attentively through that list of sources and without analysing them all individually here, without prejudice to the AfD closure at the time, I would say that GNG is met by enough of these sources.
Those of us who do a lot of NPP will certainly not win all our XFDs - I have one running at the moment which is being shot down in flames (I see now where I was technically wrong, but I considered the article to be run of the mill news however tragic). Of your 273 AfD votes, without considering "No Consensus" results, 82.3% of AfD's were matches and 17.7% of AfD's were not, and this is very good and the standard to be expected from an experienced editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, the first thing is that Wikipedia does not categorize on whether a dog breed is notable. What we aim for is to establish if the subject is notable enough for inclusion. I've spent a precious hour this morning going attentively through that list of sources and without analysing them all individually here, without prejudice to the AfD closure at the time, I would say that GNG is met by enough of these sorces all our XFDs - I have one running at the moment which is being shot down in flames (I see now where I was technically wrong, but I considered the article to be run of the mill news however tragic). Of your 273 AfD votes, without considering "No Consensus" results, 82.3% of AfD's were matches and 17.7% of AfD's were not, and this is very good and the standard to be expected from an experienced editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudz, this is about my work at WP:WikiProject Dogs and the mess we have in our encyclopedia. I don't think you are grasping the gravity of this situation. We've got advocacies wanting to euthanize dogs they say are bully types. It's horrible. I won't get into that here but something has to change because they are using WP to get recognition and validate these bully dog breeds so they can target them. That is not what WP is about. See my comment here and some of the sources being used to include a non-notable dog. They fail WP:V and WP:NOR - they're using sources based on anecdotal information - none of it verifiable. It's a joke. I'm about to throw in the towel, Kudz. I'm embarrassed that we have dog articles that are sourced to websites like this, and this...and that's what they're using to establish notability. Atsme Talk 📧 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, your original question was abut the Deletion Review for Catahoula bulldog. Wikipedia is not an advocacy venue for or against anything. Your correct pit stop is WP:Reliable sources noticeboard - there's no need for you to throw your toys out of the pram, we need all the help we can get at NPP. It would be the same as if I were to give up because I as the granddaddy of NPP am embarrassed of what I firmly believe to be the atrocious and ridiculous SNG for soccer players, which with their five-word stubs and single source make up half of the hundreds of thousands of biographies on the encyclopedia, half the daily intake of new pages, and WP:FOOTY is definitely a much bigger mess than WP:WikiProject Dogs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more! There are dozens of "fully professional" leagues and you only have to have played for any length of time in a single match to be considered notable. Almost a quarter of the pages I see in NPP are for eminently forgettable players that will never get past permastub status but because they meet NFOOTY they get a green tick. Wikipedia is becoming a repository for sports fan trivia it's an uphill battle. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My advice to Atsme is to forget the dubious notability of dog breeds if they are causing you so much angst. Walk away. Take the articles off your watchlist. Go back to writing and improving articles on fish or some other uncontroversial subject where your expertise can really benefit the encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx all for the advice. I'm taking a semi-break, trying to capture some shots of hummingbirds - you could say it's one way to shoot the bird without getting into trouble. 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Curation toolbar not advancing?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T232093

Anyone else having trouble advancing articles in the toolbar? Having the same issue from the new and old sides. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

So this is a little bizarre. When sorting by the oldest Narsingdi won't advance for me but Russian imperialism (two articles later) will. Sorting by newest Maximal ring of quotients won't advance but Money Honey (web series) does. Something strange is going on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
me as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This has been going on for a while. My suspicion is that it is somehow connected to deletion tags, particularly since this seems to occur far more often at the ends of the queue as opposed to the middle. I'll run into this issue five or so times in the first ten articles at the beginning of a reviewing session, but once I clear the slew of difficult articles skipped by reviewers and the ones waiting for their PRODs to expire I rarely have any issues. signed, Rosguill talk 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Phab ticket filed and noted here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Curation tool message

The canned message template wrapper starts with:

"Thanks for creating Jayagovind Harigopal Agarwal Agarsen College! I edit here too, under the username XXX and it's nice to meet you :-)"

I don't know who wrote this template but I do feel that this text is silly. There are plenty of creators I send messages to who are not nice people and it is no pleasure to tell them they are spammers, vandals, or attackers. Can we rethink this text please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That language was added to {{Taggednote-NPF}} by Winged Blades of Godric in this edit last December. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I would second this...in addition to the concern of sending friendly messages to clearly unconstructive editors, I feel that even for editors that I do want to be friendly to, adding a ":-)" to the end of the message sends the wrong idea of the kind of tone that I (and many others) use on talk pages. signed, Rosguill talk 06:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I do think that here on the en.Wiki, template texts should be written in standard and/or fairly formal English. I have lived and worked in regions where English is good and widespread, even official, but it's local variety may not be totally apt for an international publication such as Wikipedia. Just my two cents of biased opinion as a professional in applied linguistics ;) I have modified the text. If anyone disagrees, please BRD (with emphasis on 'D'). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
is there a reason that there's a hyphen after the colon before the actual message content? It seems like a typo, if a long-standing one. signed, Rosguill talk 07:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Removed. It was the residue of the smiley that was there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello New pages patrol/Reviewers,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: the div has an extra leading `<` - should I make a bot run to remove it (already approved to fix mass message errors, just need to know) DannyS712 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712, a typo I missed. I don't know if mass messages are transcluded or subst'd. Please do whatever you think appropriate. Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kudpung:  In progress --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this DannyS712. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
What's up with Ballonman. It should be Balloonman, Note: You're still missed.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 17:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Patrol Question

Hi i created three article and one article topic is very hot at this moment and showing on television too , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Swift_Retort_(film) this film can i request reviewers to patrol this page ? as one editor has fixed the page as now it is showing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Jammu_and_Kashmir_airstrikes i understand that 90 days is a time for patrolling the page but i need to know is there any fastest way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by پاک آرمی زندہ باد (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

پاک آرمی زندہ باد, New Page Patrollers review articles in no particular order though some priority is given to older articles. I understand waiting can be frustrating but as Operation Swift Retort (film) is only a few days old I can only offer you the advice to be patient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
پاک آرمی زندہ باد, in the meantime, you may wish to improve the page by correcting the many grammatical errors in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Tech development followup

@Rosguill, Barkeep49, MusikAnimal, Insertcleverphrasehere, Winged Blades of Godric, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, Elmidae, DGG, Onel5969, and TonyBallioni: The WMF have made a great effort to address all our requests on the wish list - and even some that weren't. I've gone through all the items at WP:PCSI, checking back at Phab, hatting some, and querying others, but there is still a bit to do. As we are fast approaching the next round of Xmas Wishlist requests, it would probably be a good idea to start having thoughts on what from the last wishlist is lagging in development (or been put on hold by the devs), and listing anything new and important that should be requested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I had planned on starting a conversation soon, so thanks for kicking this off Kudpung. If we're going to go back to wishlist this year, and until recently I'd have been opposed, the only reason I would support for doing so would be to request the work suggested by MSchottlender-WMF. The TLDR is that the code around page curation is decaying and this presents a significant long-term threat to NPP on English Wikipedia. Addressing this issue now, while the WMF institutional memory of the code base remains high, would be my top (and only) priority. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    (+1). ∯WBGconverse 13:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the changes the curation tool has undergone. Make reviewing a bit easier (especially the copyvio angle). The only two things I can think of are small, and maybe only affect me, so they might not be worth mentioning, but I still can't seem to be be able to get the curation toolbar to appear on a page I want to unreview (that I've reviewed in the past). The other thing is that when I use the curation tool to prod or csd an article, it doesn't add it to my prod or csd logs. This isn't a big thing, but I do occasionally like to go back over them and see if I'm doing something consistently incorrect. Other than that, I'm pretty pleased with the tool. I am concerned regarding Barkeep's issue about the code, so that would definitely be a priority.Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Your use of the toolbar's deletion tag is already being logged. Regarding the first issue, most a times may be the articles you're trying to load the toolbar already passes the 90-day limit. Once an article passes that limit the toolbar will never be shown again since any any review/unview after that have no effect whatsoever on the mainspace articles. For the articles still within the time frame, appending ?action?=showcurationtoolbar=1 to the URL would show the the toolbar. It's a hack and not very user-friendly, of course. But it's all we've got for now. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ammarpad, A lot of reviewers (myself included) hate the deletion tag log. It lumps ll deletion processes together and isn't editable for adding notes etc. There was a specific task put in the wishlist regarding this as this is one of the main reasons why a lot of reviewers don't use the deletion part of the curation tools. T207237
    Another task was for making the toolbar available on any page you'd like to pull it up on (for using the tagging and deletion features etc.) T207485.
    The first hasn't been approached yet, but the second is in development. (see the tech team's page for more info). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Whenever I put ?action=showcurationtoolbar=1, it says "No such action - Wikipedia does not recognize the action specified by the URL." is there something I am doing wrong.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 11:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: You should see a "Open page curation" link in the sidebar (for articles still in the time frame). For the url trick you've to append something different, which I don't recall. SD0001 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: There was a mistake in the query string. You are to append ?=showcurationtoolbar=1. Though even then the article has to be within the timeframe. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Ammarpad:, this doesn't bring the error, however it does nothing. It doesn't show the toolbar. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 22:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I know it doesn't work all the time, but it certainly works. On which page you tried it? – Ammarpad (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ammarpad:, I have tried it on Yella Beezy, Art Deco architecture of New York City, Halophila baillonis, and Treaty of Potsdam (1805). ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 22:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with the showcurationtoolbar=1 trick, but I'm pretty sure it will not work if the article is not already in the queue. phab:T207485 goes live this Thursday, which will allow you to insert any page into the queue, which then gives you the toolbar functionality. Because of how Page Curation works internally, we can't allow you to always have access to the toolbar, because the toolbar relies on certain data to be in the Page Curation database. It also has a little bit to do with scope; Page Curation from the beginning was designed for patrolling new pages, not existing ones. I totally understand and concur with the idea that the toolbar should be available for any page, forever and always, and only to users with NPR rights, but that is not the case right now.
A heads up there might be some bugs with the new "add to queue" feature, see phab:T207485#5487788. Basically it's possible that a redirect or user page that you added to the queue might automatically get removed again the next time the cron runs (within 24 hours). We can try to fix this, but I assume the main thing you wanted was to just be able to use the toolbar, so your workflow might be: (a) add page to queue, (b) add tags/mark for deletion/whatever, (c) mark it as reviewed. The amount of time that it takes to do this will likely be well before the system removes it from the queue again. — MusikAnimal talk 20:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update MusikAnimal. Just to confirm this is only the case with redirects and user pages? If so I think you're right that this will have minimal impact on reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell the bug will chiefly only affect redirects and user pages, since they are the two types of pages that eventually get removed from the queue regardless of review status. Articles will get re-removed too but only if they are marked as reviewed, which I think is OK because that (obviously) means you've finished with reviewing. I doubt you'll end up in a scenario where (in a single session) you have to add the page to the queue more than once just to make use of the toolbar. — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator

Hereby on 11:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC), Barkeep49 is appointed as the current NPR-coordinator by an unanimous consensus of the participants.Congratulations and good luck, ∯WBGconverse 11:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just over a year-and-a-half ago in another venue I wrote this:

There is so much to do on Wikipedia that people with real skills are always wanted and welcome in other areas, such as WP:NPR, for example, where such work used to be generally quite lonely and haphasard until I turned it round. In just over a year, motivated individuals have been able to reduce a 22,000 page backlog to under 600, but the work needs to continue to keep it there; without introducing hierarchies, it now needs replacement leadership to continue the coordination of that work.

With the rollout of the NPR right, ACREQ, ORES, and the insistence that the Curation system continue to be technically enhanced, I stepped back from micromanaging NPP/NPR and organised an election that would establish some form of formality for the organisation (not authority) within the system. The elected user did not take up the option to be coordinator. Others have taken the lead in some respects or another until they too became unavailable.
NPP coordination is a complex list of tasks (Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Coordinator_tasks)
NPP corodination needs someone who will often have need for the admin tools - it was what made my job as defacto coord so much easier all those years. A de facto coord is simply someone who has seen a lot of work to be done and just gets on with it - it does not confer any authority.
We now have someone who has not only been doing just that, but who has very successfully been elected to adminship.

I am therefore proposing that Barkeep49 be confirmed by the NPR community as recognised coordinator. Barkeep has confirmed by email that he would accept the position if the NPR community reaches a consensus in favour. This simple poll will be closed in 7 days by a non-involved user, or earlier if a clear consensus is reached.
Note: This is not a request for alternative nominations or suggestions; if necessary, that can and will be handled in a later, separate process.

Those in favour of Barkeep49 being confirmed as Coordinator

  1. As proposer, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Jbh Talk 21:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  3. The candidate has excellent communication skills. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  4. Makes eminent sense to me. --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  5. As I said at their recently successful RfA, not just yes, but hell yes.Onel5969 TT me 22:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  6. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  7. Since a rational is not a requirement for a support... gonna get one anyway! Someone who is interested, willing, and has recently obtained a mop bucket should certainly be an asset to the project.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support - he is eminently qualified, if this is something that he'd be willing to take on, I'm delighted to support GirthSummit (blether) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  9. The obvious choice. – bradv🍁 23:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  10. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  11. Strong support from me. As I have stepped back there are a few things that deffinitely need doing from a coordinator who is active. Barkeep49, lets have a chat at some point and I can pass a few things on to you. Cheers thanks for offering your service. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  12. Support - Absolutely qualified for this, no doubt. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  13. signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  14. Clearly, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  15. Of course. Vermont (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  16. Sure, not a problem. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  17. Makes sense to me. It seems leadership in this nook of the wiki is ever-changing... But regardless, Barkeep49 is a natural fit, especially when it comes to liaison with the WMF. I (we) greatly appreciate your general oversight and wisdom throughout this project. — MusikAnimal talk 05:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  18. See his name come up in the right places a lot. Kingsif (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support - Experience matters a lot. Hitro talk 07:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  20. Why not? Masum Reza📞 07:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  21. Seems a logical addition given his excellent NPP training and other experience Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  22. As long as this doesn't unduly reduce the amount of other good work he/she does ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  23. Me too, as long as he is up for it. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  24. Support - Seems well qualified and enthusiastic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  25. Support - I learned the NPP process by working with Barkeep49 and can only say that not only does this user know what is needed, but there is also a level of support, concern, patience, and balance present here that is greatly needed on Wikipedia. I strongly support this proposal. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  26. Aye. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  27. yes. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support:-Barkeep49 is a really worthy Wikipedian for this. They have very well experience in NPP and a really helping personality. Very helpful user for new NPRs. Their supportive, impartial and patient attitude can be a gift to the NPP.--PATH SLOPU 17:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  29. Support - thank you for volunteering. Hopefully having someone explicitly at the helm will help with organizing. Ajpolino (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  30. Support - obviously. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  31. Support absolutely. Polyamorph (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  32. Support CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  33. Support - Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 06:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  34. Support DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  35. A resounding Support Atsme Talk 📧 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  36. Support Seems fine to me-- BoothSift 01:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  37. Support Good idea, am looking forward to what will result of this. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Those not in favour of Barkeep49 being confirmed as Coordinator

Those not in favour of a confirmation process

Note *(see preamble, this section was not part of the original discussion as proposed): This is not a request for alternative nominations or suggestions; if necessary, that can and will be handled in a later, separate process.

  1. In favour of Barkeep49, but not in favour of the confirmation process. Neither TonyBallioni nor Insertcleverphrasehere nor Barkeep49 have needed confirmation to step up to the role. I fear that a confirmation process will inhibit the next coordinator from stepping up when/if (experience says "when") Barkeep49 moves on to other wiki-interests. I see no benefits to the confirmation, just a potential downside. Cabayi (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Cabayi, my thoughts on this is that there is nothing stopping anyone from taking on coordination duties, and in general people do when there is a vacuum (and barkeep has already been doing many of these things in my absence). The confirmation is merely an endorsement by the NPR community of someone already doing the work that they are supported in that effort.
    The idea that went about a while back to do an ‘election’ (e.g. multiple candidates running against each other) didn’t really work out, so I’m not a fan of that method. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    Cabayi, I think your concerns are unfounded. Admittedly I was an unconfirmed de facto coord of NPP for many years and I believe in that time I did a lot for the process - because nno one else was doing it. After I had achieved the maximum I could for it, I wanted to step back and move on to other things. In the interests of maintaining some leadership (all large Wikiprojects have some form of coordination) I was careful to organise an election on the same lines as Wikiprojects.
    I am sure that if Barkeep49 wishes at some stage to give up his coordination of NPP, he will make provision for a process to ensure that NPP is not left without a competent individual at the helm. I'll point out once more that coordination of NPP is a combined collection of tasks that require active initiative on several fronts, and not one of authority. None of the tasks are the exclusive domain of the coordinator - everyone can help and that is the very reason why it needs regular coordination, so one can look on it as a process that needs a 'go to' person with 'access all areas'.
    You are apparently currently on a hiatus for reasons which have largely been precipitated by the near total lack of structured management within the WMF. However, this coordinator confirmation process is obviously important enough for you to comment. Actually, one coord isn't really enough and the position requires a lot of support. Perhaps you would like to help out when you return. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Given that NPR has never had effective elected leadership, and that the only time the baton has been dropped was when those elected didn't step up to the role, I fear that anointing a non-exclusive, unelected leader with non-obligatory duties is more likely to be an albatross for Barkeep49 than a benefit for NPR.
    On the hiatus issue, I have hope that a resolution is in sight, that the Foundation won't try to usurp the community's role again (it's been like building services crashing in on HR's role), and that the fourth pillar, civility may get some more respect. I note the quote on your userpage from JamesBWatson and guess you'll also be in favour on that final point.
    As for my future activity, I'll continue advocate for Special:NewPages & WP:Twinkle and to speak out against a monoculture. Keeping a dirty browser history means that S:NP flags up page recreations very effectively and has led to my interests developing toward WP:SPI where I'll shortly be resuming my work as a trainee clerk.
    That being said, NPR's future development belongs on the Special:NewPagesFeed & WP:Page Curation track. Cabayi (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  2. Similar to what Cabayi said above. I have no problem with Barkeep49, but I'm not sure we need an election process. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    ONUnicorn, that why we haven't held an election. However, it will be up to Barkeep49 if he wishes to organise one at a later stage. Most Wikiprojects have annual elections. The only reason why the previous election was not a success was because the successful candidate was not able to take up the position. If you are particularly concerned for NPR, maybe you would like to help out occasionally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Are you saying I haven't been helping? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    No, ONUnicorn, but as I want to move on from NPR and concentrate more on outreach in schools and colleges while I still can, I'm trying to get people interested in taking on some initiative and leadership to organise getting the 6,000 backlog reduced and follow up with the tech development. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments and Queries

  • @Kudpung and Barkeep49: - with things changing, could you give a few thoughts on what will definitely fall under their rough tasks, as well as no doubt a major amount of "other tasks as required". I've pinged BarKeep as well in case he had any different views or ideas to Kudpung. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Nosebagbear, please read the preamble and follow the link you were provided with. Please note also that this is a straight poll, a 'Comments' section was deliberately left out in order to avoid side tracking and disruption. An ELECTED coordinator can propose any changes they wish - it's obviously part of the job. If the poll closes in just 7 days as unsuccessful, other solutions can and will be proposed. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, I'd read the preamble, not sure how I missed the link. You can delete this section if you wish Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page Curation Update - FEEDBACK NEEDED

IFried (WMF) and the team have continued to be at work updating the NPP toolset. Our request for 'Potential Issues' from ORES should be flagged in Page Curation Toolbar Page Info flyout is now live. Yeah! There are a couple other areas under development where some feedback/discussion among us seems like it would be useful. I'm creating separate sections for those two below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a "Potential COI" alert to the feed

Through discussion this turned into a request to use Abuse Filters 148 and 149. In her latest update IFried wrote: "Here is what we propose:
We indicate if there is a match between the username and article title.
We don’t indicate if there is a match between the username and external links in the article. This is due to technical complexities, which would make it difficult to consistently and accurately provide useful data. We came to this conclusion after discussing username + link matching in greater depth. If you would like more technical details, we can certainly share them.
Since this work will specifically check one form of potential abuse, we think this feature should be renamed. Rather than calling it “Potential CIO” alert, we can call it “Username in Article Title."

With this in mind, we have two questions for you:
If we go with this proposal, will this be satisfactory? Or do you feel that it’s not useful in its current scope?
If we go with this proposal, do you prefer that we only check new users (i.e. the current behavior of AbuseFilter 148) or all non-autopatrolled users? If we choose the latter, this may give the “Username in Article Title” some additional functionality that is not found in the current AbuseFilters."
Does anyone have thoughts on the two questions? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Potential COI is also potential UPE. It should be possible for the system to detect if the obvious (not so obvious to all reviewers) hallmarks are found for paid editing and flag the article as such in the feed. I've already mentioned this recently somewhere but I can't remember where. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    Kudpung, so is that a "No it's not useful in its current scope?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Check all users.
Indicate if there is a match between the username and article title. Call it 'Potential COI'
Indicate if the criteria for paid editing are met. Still call it Potential COI'
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to run a check on the article creator's userpage (not just the username)? They may have an innocuous username, but display on their userpage that they work for the relevant company (through a standard COI disclosure statement, or just in plain text). GirthSummit (blether) 19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: That would probably take more time and programming than we have available to us at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

IFried (WMF) posted a more detailed explanation of this on meta and so you can read and/or respond there if you're interested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: We have created a new ticket for this potential work: T233115 Add 'Username in title' tag and filter for Page Curation. Let us know if the basic requirements sound good to you. Also, the "medium" in the title doesn't reference priority or commitment; it's the rough level of technical effort to do the work (from the perspective of the engineers). Thanks! IFried (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Send Message to creator without needing to 'unreview'/'re-review' the article

In order for this feature to work they will need to separate the review from feedback buttons. I have indicated this is no problem. They will also need to call on a specific template, Template:Sentnote-NPF for this to work. The toolbar started calling on that new template already and Bradv created a redirect to the existing message template, Template:Reviewednote-NPF. Do we want identical templates in this scenario? If not someone can do some work there (ping to Winged Blades of Godric who I know has done NPP template work in the past). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we've actually been asking for here. I have been expecting something on the lines of:
  1. Tagging, but leaving unreviewed: Thank you for creating xxxxxx. A reviewer has tagged the article as needing your attention before it can be accepted for indexing by search engines."
  2. Tagging, but passing as patrolled: The standard message, with the message details completed by the reviewer.
  3. A further idea: For all new articles passed as patrolled, a thank you template with a few (really just a few) links to help pages, the Teahouse, and 'Your first article'. Most of the new articles are created by new users and this would also help demonstrate that there are a humans behind Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer. What's being asked here is what do want the template Sentnote-NPF to look like? Right now it's redirecting to Reviewednote-NPF. Is that what we want or do we want a distinction between the two? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49:
1. New template: "Thank you for creating xxxxxx. A reviewer has tagged the article as needing your attention before it can be accepted for indexing by search engines.""
2. Template:Reviewednote-NPF
3. A new template that should automatically be sent when an article is passed as patrolled without further comment.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, so returning to this #3 is outside the scope of this project and would have to go on a new wishlist and so I'll add it to the suggestions page shortly after this reply. IFried (WMF) can correct me if I'm wrong but I sending a message to a user is now completely separate from whether it's reviewed or not. So there might not be a way to to make both 1 & 2 happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup, Barkeep49, you're correct. We have decoupled two sections that were previously tied together: a) “mark as reviewed,” b) send a message to the creator process. They're now separate processes. With that in mind, we’re requesting that the community adds the following template: Sentnote-NPF. This template is already being called in the code, so we’ll need it added in order for the new custom message template (sent to page authors) to be available. Thanks. IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Barkeep49. I have yet to put it to the test. I may be one of the the 'grandfathers' of NPP/NPR but although I still do a bit of patrolling and keeping a casual eye on things, I admit to not being entirely up to date with all the technical improvements we successfully called for in the last Wish list. If sending a message to a user is now completely separate from whether it's reviewed or not, is working, it's important and useful, while #3, while it would be nice, is not urgent. My argument is that it would serve as encouragement to new users whose articles have been reviewed, by showing them that there is a human interest in what they are doing - this would be in complete contrast to the myriad of templates pasted on new users' talk pages by the greatly abused 'Welcoming Committee'. Although it shouldn't be difficult to code, if we can't get it squeezed in somehow, let's definitely earmark it for the next wish list, although I think the wish list system is a terrible way of begging to get stuff done. There is plenty of money out there to do these things, but nothing much will change as long as the WMF continues to largely ignore the stakeholders in preference for the stuff that the devs themselves want to do.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I think being dependent on the wishlist for improvements is less than ideal as well. You might have noticed (and putting it out there for others who read this and haven't noticed) that I made another suggestion which would hopefully be a top priority for any future wishlist to have things be less hardcoded. I look at all the amazing work happens with Twinkle and think that even a small portion of community talent brought to curation regularly could do some good stuff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:Twinkle is worth reading and I fail to understand to this day why the WMF did not develop Curation as a js gadget. Perhaps it's something to do with rivalry WMF vs the Community - Ryan could answer that one ;) However, it was offered to us as a compromise for their refusal of ACTRIAL so we weren't going to look the gift horse in the mouth. With ORES in the Feed and the current enhancements to the Curation tool, I do think we now have a very good set of tools for both NPP & AfC reviewers, with just a few more tweaks to make, but the progress on development is not as good as on Twinkle where the devs will quickly incorporate any new ideas or requested changes; the great advantage (for me at least) is that all the templates are user-configurable. On glancing through Suggested Improvements I note that this one is actually tracked at Phab. Perhaps in hindsight, it's probably kinda really what I was wanting above. Let's hope it gets done.
BTW, I'm still curious as to how Vincelord is reviewing new pages and why he is not using Curation. How do we maintain accurate stats if not all patrols are in the right logs? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, presumably through twinkle or the "mark as patrolled" option which can appear in the lowerleft when page curation is turned off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Template to use

If I hear no objection in the next day or so I will port over the current wording of Template:Reviewednote-NPF which reads:

Thanks for creating Article Name

NPP Reviewer's username while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Comment

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with Re:NPP Reviewer's username}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC) .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

This way the new send message feature, which would go live on the ability for us to send a message to the article's creator, regardless of whether or not we mark the article as reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's try it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now done this. See the current template at Template:Sentnote-NPF. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Something important I hadn't fully realized, but now the only way to leave a message is to click the "Add a message for the creator". Typing a message in the box and clicking review will not leave a message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
We need to get this right. Messaging the creator should be made easier for the reviewers and encourage them to use the feature more often. Can you look into it? You know best where these things are tracked at Phab. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Status Update for Project Posted on Meta-Wiki (August 20, 2019)

Hey, everyone! I've just posted a status update and a question for the community on the Page Curation & New Pages Feed improvements project page. IFried (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In case you don't want to click over, the update reveals that making the curation tool available to other Wikis won't be done. It also says that implementing sorting or filtering by page views of an article in the queue is not feasible but is it worth giving development time to just noting that information in the queue? I have give my thoughts on the discussion page and would encourage interested reviewers to do likewise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Feedback on T207238: Special:NewPageFeed - add option to filter by pageviews

I posted this update on Meta-Wiki, but I'm sharing it on Wikipedia too, so we can get some more input (see details below)

  • T207238: Special:NewPageFeed - add option to filter by pageviews and the associated spike: T225169: [4 hours] Investigate whether it's efficient to order by tag value (DBA input requested): This work presents significant challenges, but there may be an alternative solution.
    • First, the challenges (according to analysis from the engineering team): In order to filter/sort by inputted numbers, the numbers must be stored in the database in a specific manner. This first step alone would take several weeks, if not months, according to the estimates provided by Wikimedia database experts. Then, we would need to populate the sortable cells with pageview data, which comes from an external service. To do this, we would need to create a process that pulls the data from the external service and stores it in MediaWiki’s PageTriage table. Then, we would do this work repeatedly, so that the numbers would remain up-to-date, over the entire PageTriage database (which consists of tens of thousands of rows, if not more). This process is both uncommon (in MediaWiki servers) and complex; we would need to define this process and identify the correct way to implement it, in collaboration with Operations and Database experts. In total, we do not find the request, in its current form, within our scope. For more details on the technical analysis and discussion with the database administrators, you can check out the associated investigation ticket.
    • Second, the alternative solution (as described in the T225169 investigation): We could display the number of pageviews in the article record, without allowing for sorting or filtering. Would this be a satisfactory alternative to the community? And, if so, how would you like the number of pageviews displayed (e.g. average per day, median per day, total views in the last 30 days, etc)? Note that the results displayed will be from 24 hours earlier than the display time, and we’ll want to query from a maximum of 30 days ago (for the sake of general efficiency and manageability of this feature). We do not yet know if we can do this work — but, if we could, would it be worth our time and effort, in your opinion? IFried (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Example of what it may look like:

Example of how the page views could be displayed

Pinging some people who haven't responded yet but may have some feedback (regarding the question above). @Kudpung, DannyS712, ONUnicorn, Nick Moyes, Sadads, Innisfree987, MrX, SshibumXZ, PamD, Usernamekiran, Swpb, DGGMduvekot, Hydronium Hydroxide, and Vexations: Thanks! IFried (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on this feature. I will comment on meta regarding the message feature. Pinging @DGG and Mduvekot:. (Previous ping failed). —usernamekiran(talk) 10:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the way most people work, sorting would be much more helpful than display, so if sorting is impractical, I don't think it is worth the trouble to display them. As for me, I review preferentially in subject fields I know (as do only a few others), so I should recognize them. Additional considerations are: Something with a major unexpected spike would normally have attracted the attention of others than the NPP regulars. That 24 hour lag will be a significant minus, as the the most recent time period is what really matters. But I am undoubtedly biased by the lack of usefulness for the particular way I work, and if others think it would really help them, my idiosyncrasy shouldn't count for much. I'll comment on the message feature above. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • IFried (WMF), apologies for being late, I somehow missed this. I'm not sure of the importance of displaying the page views. It's not a feature I would use for patrolling a page. I'm also concerned that every new bit of meta information we add to the entries in the feed will slow down the loading of the feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 you weren't pinged by IFried (WMF) on this. Perhaps you should have been. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I wasn't but interacted on this topic on meta. I share your skepticism that this is a net improvement for reviewers as proposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_33&oldid=1115492393"