Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Reliable Japanese source

Greetings. It's not on the NPP reliable sources list (one way or another), but does anyone have any knowledge of the reliability of Natalie.mu (see here). I can't find anything about their editorial policies. There's a newer editor who is very diligently working to create anime articles with reliable sources. Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, looking through the website with a translator, it's very clearly professional but isn't forthcoming with editors' names or bylines and appears to run paid content. My assessment is that it's better off avoided. signed, Rosguill talk 04:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosguill, thanks. That was pretty much what I thought, but I wanted at least one other set of eyes to give their opinion. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem with reviewers incorrectly marking new articles as orphans.

On at least three separate occasions recently I have had multiple new articles incorrectly marked as orphans by three separate reviewers. Some of these articles were linked on creation to existing redlinks, and all were linked within minutes of creation to multiple others by me. This indicates a serious flaw in how some reviewers approach their task, and needs to be fixed without delay. As well as the time wasted fixing these instances it reflects badly on my performance. Downsize43 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: As the most recent of the reviewers mentioned above I look forward to your explanation for your actions. Downsize43 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a function of the curation tools, simple as that. Sorry you feel affronted by it. Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Without knowing which articles you are referring to it's difficult to give a specific answer. In general terms, articles are tagged in the new pages feed if orphans. You can also see if a page is an orphan from the "what links here" link on the page. However, as both of these are cached recent changes may not show up. It gets more complicated with navboxes. If you add a link to a page in a navbox, the pages using the navbox will not show up in "what links here" until those pages are next saved, which may not be for months. --John B123 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is a function of the curation tools then they are either inadequate or not being used correctly. Whatever happened to common sense and not biting the user? I have tried the alternative of creating redlinks in existing articles before creating the new article. Unfortunately this attracts the attention of the anti-redlink brigade and said links are too frequently reverted within minutes of creation. Downsize43 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Downsize43, I reviewed 40 articles that you created that were reviewed. 10 of those had been tagged with {{orphan}}. Telita, Tasmania, Trenah, Tasmania, Dairy Plains, Tasmania, Jackeys Marsh, Tasmania, Oaks, Tasmania, Quamby Bend, Tasmania, South Nietta, Tasmania, South Preston, Tasmania, East Ridgley, Tasmania and Round Hill, Tasmania.
When I look at Round Hill , I see that it is linked from City of Burnie, List of localities in Tasmania, Wivenhoe, Tasmania , and Chasm Creek, Tasmania. The tag was placed on 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The link from City of Burnie to Round Hill was made in this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=City_of_Burnie&diff=prev&oldid=1000725748&diffmode=source on 11:39, 16 January 2021. You're correct that the link existed prior to the tag being added, but I suspect that when the reviewer clicked on what links here, they did not see those articles listed. The problem may have been that there is some lag in database that prevents the what links here function to work immediately. The function is documented here. I suspect that either purging the page or making a Wikipedia:Purge#Null_edit will resolve the issue. As far as I know, this is not caused by a problem with the curation tools. Note to reviewers: You may want to purge pages before reviewing them. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
When you create redlinks prior to article creation, did you explicitly indicate that it was in preparation for that in the edit summary? If not, that might have avoided some removals, and if such edits do happen to be carelessly reverted, then one additional re-revert to ensure that whoever is doing it was doing it deliberately (which would require discussion) would be reasonable. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vexations: Thank you for your interest in my little problem. I will try adding a redlink to List of localities in Tasmania, with a suitable edit summary, just before I publish the new article. Downsize43 (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Arabic/Islamic expertise

There are a slew of recent articles (over 30 currently in the queue), by User:Kalimoun, many (if not all) of which have been tagged as essay-like. Need one of us who has more expertise than I do to take a look at these and evaluate them. In my opinion, most do appear to have a bit of WP:SYNTH about them. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 14:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kalimoun seems to tag his articles with {{more citations needed}} and {{essay-like}} himself.[1] I'd also be happy if somebody with more expertise in this area were to look at them. --John B123 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I’ve passed a couple and read several more which I haven’t decided what to do about. They’re quite heavy chewing. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Peculiarly, this appears to be unnecessary self-flagellation on part of the author. I certainly wouldn't describe something like Fajr nafl prayer as essay-like by our definitions, i.e. structurally made up like an argument with a specific target. The current article format seems fine. Can't quite judge the "additional citations" issue, as the refs are are all to Arabic sources, but most of them seem to be to different pages in the same work, so maybe that's justified. Anyway, suggest leaving in the citations needed tag and removing the essay one. Oh, and running them through Refill - that's a whole lotta naked html refs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The bare urls are generally books so I use citation bot which gives fuller citations than reFill. --John B123 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Those are the same issues I've been having with them, but I hate leaving articles for others to have to review. I agree with Elmidae that some of them look fine, but as I said, many appear to have at least some element of SYNTH about them. BTW, John B123, Reflinks is back up and running, and that is usually more thorough than Refill. You can find it at [[2]]. Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Had to update my /common.js to get it to work as it's using a different url. (updated code at User:Dispenser/Reflinks. --John B123 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello to all Wikipedia administrators. I am happy and delighted with the great interest that you give to my modest contributions related to Islam, Sufism and Algeria. I hope that I gradually improve the presentation and format of my new articles. I cordially await your support and advice to be more productive and rigorous. Thank you all. --Kalimoun (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Anime News Network

Greetings again. It's not listed on WP:NPPRS, and an archival search over at WP:RS does not reveal a true consensus, although it appears that anime fans tend to look at it as a reliable source, while those not involved with the anime project are more skeptical. While it does have a very small editorial staff, most of the "articles" appear to simply be posts by users, similar to a blog. Quite a few anime articles are relying mostly/solely on this source. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 14:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those awkward situations where the people who care about this subject matter essentially treat a source as reliable for lack of better sources, despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things its quality is quite poor. ANN is one of the only English language sources that covers anime that don't already have huge followings in the English speaking world; ignoring it in notability assessments would probably cut down our anime content by a third, at least (and that's before we even get into the fact that from what I've seen, online Japanese coverage of anime has a lot of the same quality problems). There's a fair amount of USEBYOTHERS ([3], [4], [5], [6]), and from what I've seen they stick to news about publications, so we're unlikely to end up in a situation where it's being used to hold up problematic BLP content. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Amefurasshi

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amefurasshi in 2018. The article was recreated and I redirected it. The creator is not happy about this and contends it meets WP:NBAND. Could somebody give me a second opinion. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

John B123, the sourcing in the article is poor and is honestly G4'able, but the initial editor provided a link to a charting single [7] on your talk page, which would make a case for meeting WP:NBAND. I don't know why they didn't include that citation in the article itself. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thanks for having a look. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Idreeshussain123

@Idreeshussain123: is creating a large number of short articles about protests in countries around the world. Many of these contain claims not supported by the sources cited and appear to be personal interpretations. Please be aware if you’re reviewing any of their creations. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: thanks for the heads-up. --John B123 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Noindex on page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ridder While this page apparently has been patrolled, it is still showing as noindex. You can see that by right click the page to see its HTML source, and towards the top it has "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>". Upon searching the URL on Google brings up no results to the page either, which suggests it is not being indexed. Is there anything can be done please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 13:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brslxyl: The page hasn't been reviewed yet so it won't be indexed. Why the rush to get it indexed by Google? --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: It's not that, I am using that to determine if the page has been reviewed, now I know it hasn't. Do you know how long it will take please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brslxyl (talk • contribs) 18:39, February 5, 2021 (UTC)
Reviews are done in no particular order. If after 90 days they have not been reviewed they are automatically indexed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: is there any easier way to find out if a page has been reviewed yet or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:880f:b200:74f8:723e:92c8:7515 (talk • contribs)
You could use the patrol log. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=patrol&user=&page=Draft%3ABlake_Ridder&wpdate=&tagfilter= Vexations (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

not certain what to do

not sure what this is 1. redirect or 2. article please see2021_Australian_Grand_Prix,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, hi. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. The link you provided is a redirect, 2021 Australian Grand Prix, which takes you to the article, 2021 Formula One World Championship. It could be more specific, directing the reader to the section, "Calendar", where it is included in the list of races in the Championship. It's clearly a legitimate redirect, since it is mentioned in the target. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
its been fixed since[8], which was moved to draft, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

New tag: "No reliable sources"

I understand there's been a need for a maintenance tag for articles with no reliable sources in them. Such a tag now exists: behold--

. You are welcome. A loose necktie (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@A loose necktie, I can see uses for this. Are you talking with the Twinkle people to get it incorporated there? I think we'll have a hard time getting it into the toolbar without foundation support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't considered it, though it certainly seems like a good idea. I will see if I can give it a shot. Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with {{Unreliable sources}}? Adam9007 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, yes. See the discussion taking place here. A loose necktie (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How do we find the program again?

Hello,

I have had a really rough past few months, and I am trying to get back to my normal editing routine. Its been a while since I have used the NPP features and I cannot seem to find the reviewer tool. I can get to the Page Curation page, but the tool is no where to be found.

Thank you AmericanAir88(talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you got a "Open Page Curation" link in the tools section of the left hand menu? --John B123 (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I too have one question regarding 'page curation' tool. When I send the message to article creator using page curation tool, my message also get posted on article 's talk page. Is there any way to post my message to only article creator's talk page. --Gazal world (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about draftification

There’s a discussion going on about use and possible misuse of draftification going on at the Village Pump. Similar matters have been raised here before but despite the assertion that draftification is being used as back door deletion, no clear evidence of this was forthcoming. It nevertheless seems to be a firm conviction in the minds of some editors. Mccapra (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra, interesting. I think most of the folks complaining are ones who don't really want to bother with those tiresome things like footnotes, references, WP:VERIFY. At least one of the folks engaged in that discussion had an article draftified by me, after they had ignored a ref improve tag for almost a month (Annunciation (Masolino)). Once draftified, lo and behold, they addressed the situation. Their complaint the VP discussion was that it should only have been tagged. Which obviously didn't work. Now the article is properly sourced and back in mainspace. I think that's kind of like a textbook example of how draftify is supposed to work. Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I really don’t buy this “back door to deletion” thing. It’s about getting creators to source their articles properly. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I actually think of draftification as ATD. If I think there's a chance of notability, but there's not enough to satsify WP:VERIFY, that's to a me a perfect candidate for draftifying. I will say, I rarely draftify recently created articles. Usually, the articles I send to draft have been tagged for references for at least 3 weeks, with no effort at correction. Onel5969 TT me 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Pretty much the same for me. The normal route is to tag for sources first and then draftify after a couple of weeks if nothing has happened. I feel draftification is particularly relevant to the large number of new article where there re no English sources. I’m not likely to know if Cambodian singer or an Indonesian blogger meet our notability requirements. Sending them to draft give them the benefit of the doubt. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not unsympathetic to the idea that it's a very slow PROD. Because if it's sent to draftspace and nothing happens with it, after six months it gets deleted and by being in draftspace it's less likely to get improvements from random people stumbling across it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Onel5969, Mccapra, what’s perplexing is everyone there seems to agree there’s a problem but none of them have (imo) have proposed a well thought out solution. Generally, i do not believe WP:DRAFTIFY is being used as a back door to unilaterally delete an article, in fact, the irony is I believe it is used to save an article from deletion. Whenever i draftify an article, it’s because I feel the article has potential but is just too problematic to be on mainspace, for example, if they are not sourced, written in a very biased manner, has a ton of grammatical errors, and a COI that needs to be addressed or discussed. I don’t doubt the editor who initiated the conversation means well for the project but I do not believe they thought this one through, One of the many reasons of draftifying an article is for COI concerns and the need for it to be addressed/declared before moving the article back to mainspace. Its only logical that vehemently telling covert UPE(COI) editors that they can always move their articles back to mainspace without addressing the COI, would (imo) only create space for UPE to exponentially increase, so like I said, I don’t think certain things were put into consideration before they initiated the discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I think part of the problem is that despite everyone's best intentions, it's been demonstrated (IMO rather convincingly) that AfC does not do a better job at encouraging productive content creation and article improvement (there's even been academic papers chronicling this phenomenon [9]). Nevertheless, the semantics of draftify vs delete lead page patrollers to believe that they're taking the kinder, ATD road, even when this is not the actual result. An obscure topic with weak sourcing is going to get a better hearing at AfD than being relegated to AfC.
    AfC is very effective at being a COI holding zone, and I endorse the continued use of draftify to handle suspected COI. It also has its uses for handling good-faith articles with severe issues such as BLP violations that could be fixed but that are nowhere near ready for publication, and for handling articles about non-notable topics that have content that could be repurposed in another article about a notable topic. But I don't think it is an effective strategy for dealing with articles that are simply falling short of notability guidelines. In a world where we had ample paid staff at AfC to guide new editors with article creation, AfC could do what it was originally intended to do, but the realities of our platform and volunteer model do not allow this system to fulfill this role. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday, I have seen this article draftified. I am not sure what backdoor it was supposed to be, but this draftification was absolutely unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree Ymblanter and if it were someone who held NPR I'd say something. I would definitely encourage you to provide feedback to that editor since you spotted it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
They do not have a flag, but I think I can do it anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter, that’s horrible draftfying seeing as it was overt that the individual was notable as they satisfy NPOL id proceed to caution the editor right now. Celestina007 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have already left them a message.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I left them this also. I think they wouldn’t be erring anytime soon. Celestina007 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the draftification of this one yesterday, Kwe Te No, again passes WP:NPOL. --John B123 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

their rationale is as vague as it is perplexing. Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • SportsOlympic seems on a mission to move articles out of draft[10] based purely on notability and ignoring lack of referencing etc. --John B123 (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    John B123, yeah, he's being a bit of a .... I don't mind folks moving articles back, but simply moving them back without improvement, shows oneself to be a lazy editor with no concern for creating work for other, productive editors. And it simply reduces the quality of the project. I guess there are those who are here to improve the quality, and then there are those who really don't care about crappy articles. Onel5969 TT me 01:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    I mean maybe this is an unpopular opinion in these parts but I would suggest that this is the system working the way it's designed. Personally I think some of the articles I sport checked were better in draft than mainspace, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to call him lazy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, I would agree that it's the way draftification is designed, since anyone can object to it being moved to draft. However, I would disagree that is the way it's supposed to work. That's looking at draftification as a type of punishment, rather than as I view it, which is as a way to help improve potential articles, and the quality of the project overall. In that way it's similar to removing blocks of uncited material, only to be reverted without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    There are some articles that have been inappropriately moved to draft, such as the two examples above, others that have been improved since draftification. Other articles may have been created in draft and then abandoned, but progressed far enough to survive in mainspace. In these circumstances moving to mainspace isn't a problem, but moving articles that were legitimately moved to draft or have been declined at AfC without making improvements makes you wonder why we bother with NPP and AfC. --John B123 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed. There is clearly a group of editors opposed to having draftspace at all and they want to keep chipping away at it. If there are people sending things to draft inappropriately that shows a need for education and possibly restricting the right, but allowing people to move articles without proper sourcing back into mainspace just because they want it there is crazy. The “take it to AfD” brigade are missing the point that we don’t want to have it deleted, we want it to be improved so its ready for mainspace. With all the pearl clutching about overuse of draftspace there’s a refusal to address the bigger picture of articles that don’t meet our sourcing requirements (though they may be notable). Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Wow Mccapra - did you ever hit the nail on the head. I don't draftify because I want to delete an article... no one would ever accuse me of being shy about prodding or AfD'ing an article. I draftify for precisely the reason that I feel the article has merit (except in UPE cases), and want it to be worked on and improved. And I love the "pearl clutching" metaphor as well as the "Take it to AfD brigade". I agree that moving to draft might work better if restricted to NPP editors, as most of the inappropriate moves have been by non-NPP editors. Onel5969 TT me 00:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Seconded, most articles moved to draft could equally be PROD or CSD candidates. Moving to draft-space actually saves them from deletion, giving the content creators a chance to bring it into policy-compliance. Polyamorph (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User POS78

Hello, this user has been creating a bunch of one-liner stub articles of castles in Iran (as an example, see Aliabad Castle, Birjand), using just one source that is linked to "Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Iran", that doesn't work for me. Several editors have expressed their concern over this on POS78's talk page so that they address this problem. They added this source to some of the articles as a supplement (as an example, see Kamar Qala castle), but the source is a link to a hotel website and should not be considered reliable nor does it count towards notability. I would appreciate any thoughts/opinions on this. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Many if not all of these are likely to be notable but the sources are hopeless and the creator us churning out dozens per day. I’d favour mass draftification which might at least get them to slow down and resubmit with proper sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I went through clearing all these out of the queue this morning before seeing this. When these started appearing I looked at them individually. All had pages on the fa-wiki, most of which were well beyond a stub, and all were registered "national monuments of Iran". Although poor articles, they would probably survive AfD so I have been marking them as reviewed. --John B123 (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I would favor the mass draftification strategy, as I fear, that while they would likely survive AfD, without some sort of action, they will remain poorly cited microstubs. In addition, they are also creating stubs on districts, with a single source. The first two I looked at, the source did not mention the district, so I draftified them. As well as the source being an unreliable source. Onel5969 TT me 13:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969 and all: I think whenever there is a problem with mass creation, a talk page message explaining the issues is always an important early step in the process. Especially if there's going to be a lot of drafitication which could potentially lead to user talk spamming. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I would advise against unilateral draftification of any article you're reasonably certain will survive AFD; draftification is more for things that are between notable (as you can discern from sources available, and not just the ones in the article) and junk (that can be easily deleted). Just mark it reviewed, with appropriate tags. And address the issue by taking concerns to the editor's talk page and escalate from there as necessary (for example, take it to ANI to push a throttle on article creation or to force AFC participation or even to gain consensus for mass-draftification). Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about drafts

Today I thought I’d take a look at draftspace to see if there were any articles I could work up and move to mainspace. The normal listing is huge of course and most of the drafts there have already been redirected to mainspace articles. Does anyone know of a tool that will show only unredirected drafts, and preferably show their age too, so I may be able to identify candidates from a more manageable starting list? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra, not sure if this is what you're looking for, but using the New Pages Feed might accomplish it. But instead of clicking on New Page Patrol (right above "set filters"), click on Articles for Creation. Then you can set the filters for what you want. I set it for "unsubmitted", and it came up with 34k. Then of course, it also sorts by date, and as you look at the draft, you can tell whether or not it's a redirect. Setting the filter for submitted, yields 4k, "declined" yields 20k, "all" is either taking a long time to load or is broken. Let me know if that's what you were think of. Onel5969 TT me 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Sooo..... right in front of my nose then! Thank you. Mccapra (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

New Pages Feed

It is difficult to modify the filter using a notebook for editing. The list update box covers the apply filter button. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been dealing with an article Quantum ontology (which I nominated at AfD) and it turns out the editor had an undisclosed COI and was editing on behalf of a client, see their admission here. Perhaps an admin could take a look? Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Another user, who I believe is the client of the paid editor, is now leaving messages on my talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like BlacklilyofKoN has since made an attempt to properly declare. See this edit. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think what with the declaration on the talk page, this is more or less by the book now, so no admin involvement should be needed. As for mailing with the client, haha - I guess if you are feeling masochistic... :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, you're right. I "archived" their invitation to chat. Polyamorph (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
They will not take no for an answer, I'm going to keep reverting any of their messages on my talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Polyamorph do you still need admin assistance? It seems like this might be under control now, minus their messaging to you? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49:, it turns out the original user was pretty harmless, and declared their COI as soon as it was pointed out to them. But now a user who appears to be the original client is unhappy the page was deleted. I reverted their edit on my talk page, and also on Talk:Quantum ontology as they copy/pasted my comments and made some personal attacks. Perhaps you could take a look there, you can restore content if you think I did the wrong thing but I don't want my comments copy/pasted or the subsequent personal attacks. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Sweep

Hi all! I wanted to give you a heads up about the launch of WikiProject Sweep, which aims to facilitate a comprehensive patrol process for Wikipedia's early articles that may take a similar form to NPP. We're currently trying to decide matters like the best cutoff date for the articles to be swept. If anyone here knows the history of NPP well, it'd be especially valuable to have your input, as the date when NPP in its modern form (i.e. comprehensively checking every new article against a set of stndards) began is likely a good cutoff. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, hi. Is what you did at Louise Anne Bouchard part of what this new project will be doing? Onel5969 TT me 14:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Not really, no; per the project page, we are not at the point of sweeping pages yet. I was looking through the category of unreferenced BLPs to get a sense of the types of pages we'll be encountering. At ones like Bouchard, the lack of sourcing is pretty egregious. I didn't have time to do a WP:BEFORE so I just added a short description and moved on. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb:, is the intention to add pages that don't meet the standard to the NPP queue as Louise Anne Bouchard was? An article created in January 2017 is hardly a new page. --John B123 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
John B123, oh right, that's the other thing I did for that page. It was initially autopatrolled by an editor who later had that permission revoked, and given the lack of referencing, I figured it ought to be checked. And no; please read the project page if you want to understand further the project's aims and current state. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I could do some of the history but Kudpung is actually the right person to ask. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, they've already been pinged at the project talk page by another editor. I meant this to be a {{Please see}}-type message; let's centralize further discussion at WT:Sweep. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the ping, but I think I have made it perfectly clear that my my days of pro-active collaboration on-Wiki on any of the policies/systems I created or helped to set up are over and have been since 'bloody' Sunday 1 March 2020, 1 year, 25 days ago, and the way my work on NPP was treated was part of the reason. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

submission for new page review

The article has gone through a DYK review, and should be hitting the main page in the coming weeks. Kindly mark it as reviewed, so that it shows up on Google. Thanks, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

How are we to deal with this?

Praxidicae pointed out to me sometime ago that of recent certain Nigerian reliable sources aren’t so reliable anymore & they provided cogent irrefutable examples to substantiate their claims & I quite agree with them, my dilemma is this, Nigerian reliable sources that are beginning to lose their credibility were once no brainer reliable sources, but my problem is this, before they began losing their credibility they were genuine and most articles, included the ones I have created have them listed in the references, so are we to back date this & start nominating certain articles that use them for deletion or moving forward are we not to use them again since their reliability is in doubt? Celestina007 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I think if there is a hard date when their reliability began to drop off, than we use that as the borderline. Anything prior to that date, they can be deemed reliable, anything after that date becomes questionable. Are these sources listed at WP:NPPSG? That would be a good place to leave specific date/time notes. Onel5969 TT me 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The source is currently listed at WP:NPPSG as reliable, per this discussion. But as Onel5969 says, this entry can be modified to take into account a cut-off date when this source can no longer be considered reliable. Polyamorph (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969, Polyamorph, thanks Onel, the hard date approach is definitely the most intellectual method to address this. Celestina007 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Malagasy Wikipedia

I came across this page in the new page feed and I wasn't even sure how to deal with it, where to post to ask, do we really need that page! Any thoughts? Govvy (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

As with any other article, this needs significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. At the moment there are no secondary sources and it should probably redirect to the list of wikipedia's page. If I had come across this page I would redirect it back to the list page with a justification in the edit summary to say there is insufficient evidence of standalone notability to satisfy WP:GNG. If it is then restored again the alternative is to simply nominate it for deletion stating a preference for redirection. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
So regardless of being a page about wikipedia, inside wikipedia, it still requires GNG, okay, looks like from the history PK2 had the right idea, Llywelyn2000 changed it back. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, just being about a wikipedia does not give it any special importance. I think it is right to include it in the list but if some substantial independent sources can be found then it could be expanded into its own page. Polyamorph (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Pages being moved from draft

Greetings. Just a head's up, there's a rather newish editor, Serine Ben Brahim, who has been moving quite a few under-referenced drafts into mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Serine_Ben_Brahim PamD 18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
PamD, thank you. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What happened here, AfD

Hi all, I nominated MIXR for deletion using the page curation tool but it seems to have only partially completed and hasn't actually created my nomination and justification. Is this a bug? Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it manually, still seems a bug, like the process failed on the final task of creating the nomination page. Polyamorph (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
There's an old saying around here: don't use the curation toolbar for stuff twinkle can do. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I've had problems using the curation toolbar for AfDs in the past. I use twinkle instead now. --John B123 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I experienced the same several times in past. So I do it manually. I don't use twinkle. --Gazal world (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
hmmm, ok then! 🤣 Polyamorph (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Same here, curation toolbar is good for speedies, just not AfD! Govvy (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Had the same problem last year, so now I only use the curation toolbar for tagging and marking reviewed. Prod's, Speedies, and AfD's go through Twinkle. Onel5969 TT me 12:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

N:SCHOLAR

You know what would be nice? A list by specialty of when what H-index or citation counts make for a notable academic. For example, on an article I just sent to AfD, they had an H-index of 10. Which I thought did not meet the bar. But as per this discussion, for a philologist, that might meet the bar. Thoughts? Volunteers? Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for that discussion; please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Also, there is no community consensus regarding your question so don't expect an answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's very difficult to come up with a cut-and-dried solution for this problem. Some fields are so niche that it may be hard to determine a citation count in the first place. Even when there is a citation count, editors seem to have rather varying ideas on what counts as "high" (see this AfD I was involved in). Publications with reputable presses are a better measure, I find. In my discipline (Classics), academics who have published a handful of books with, say, Oxford University Press, mostly meet NPROF in some way. Again, it would be hard to build consensus on something like this. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
h-index is not a good metric as it is so varied in different fields. It is also open to abuse (self citations). Regarding publications in reputable presses, we have to be careful as the quality of work published in high impact journals can be so variable, provided it is properly peer reviewed we should not judge by the prestige of the publisher. Polyamorph (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Essentially we should follow the principles of DORA and simply should not be assessing on H-Index or publisher impact factors. Polyamorph (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Large jump today

In case anyone is wondering why there was such a large jump in the number on the backlog, it is due to Jikaoli Kol being blocked as a UPE. So all their reviews have been undone. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks. It looked a bit scary! Mccapra (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Self-reviewed articles

Is it permitted to review your own articles? Is reviewing your own articles best practise? I'm looking at this ANI complaint about mass-article creation and I note that all of the articles (which number in the thousands, and made using a single source that the creator acknowledges is unreliable) were also reviewed by the creator. This is not an attempt at forum-shopping or trying to spread trouble - I just genuinely don't know if self-review is permitted, particularly where the review appears copy-pasted and done in seconds. I would have assumed it wasn't but I don't see anything here saying it isn't, and searching in the archives hasn't turned anything up, so maybe I'm wrong? At the very least I thought I'd check here first. Apologies if this has already been covered in the archives. FOARP (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: that user has the auto patrolled user right, so as I understand it any article they create automatically gets patrolled and not seen by anyone at NPP. This user right is granted to trusted users who create lots of articles. Of course it can be taken away (along with NPP) if they are shown to have abused that trust. As far as the articles go, it is a perrenial problem here at NPP and has been discussed several times. Some SNG guidelines are unduly lenient and inconsistent with WP:GNG. Compare with others, like WP:PROF where the some may consider the opposite to be true. Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
edit conflict - FOARP, hi. He's not reviewing his own articles in the sense that he creates them and then marks them reviewed. He has the autopatroller right, which automatically marks articles he creates as reviewed (just like I have that same right), see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. I see that in the discussion, there has been a suggestion that this right be removed from him. I'm actually surprised by this behavior. But to your question, there does not appear to be any precise language in the instructions prohibiting this, however it might be argued that item #1 in the guidelines for revocation would cover this, "The editor has demonstrated a pattern of performing obviously controversial reviews without first determining consensus." For surely reviewing your own work would be controversial. But perhaps we should get consensus to actually add the exact prohibition for reviewing your own work. That would seem to circumvent the autopatrol right. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I think that would work, banning self reviews at NPP unless they have the autopatroller right, which can be taken away if they abuse it. Polyamorph (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Polyamorph, I would definitely support that. Onel5969 TT me 13:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
That said, I often create redirects so could do with them being autopatrolled! Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC) But I guess all I need to do in that case is to request the right Polyamorph (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
You can apply at WP:RWHITELIST if you want to have your redirects automatically reviewed but don't think you qualify for autopatrolled. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that information Lord Bolingbroke. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
One can not review one's own articles with NPR rights. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As in the system does not allow it? Polyamorph (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup - you don't get the review toolbar to pop up on articles you created. So unless you have autopatrolled, your articles stay in the queue until someone else reviews them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Elmidae, oh, that's right, I forgot that. Does that make adding the verbiage a moot point? Onel5969 TT me 17:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I suppose there's a discussion to be had about COI/involved reviewing, but yeah, I'm learning lots of stuff I didn't know about NPP here! FOARP (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes Onel5969. If the system doesn't allow you to do something we don't need to clutter instruction pages with rules that are hard to break. Of course people could run two or more accounts and have their accounts patrol the other accounts articles, but that would breach the sockpuppetry rules. I suspect that quid pro quo arrangements between two or more editors are the bigger problem. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, I hadn't even thought about that last point. Although I can see that might be an issue, there are several groups of editors who do appear to work in concert. And in one of those groups, at least one of the editors does have the NPP right. Onel5969 TT me 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Collaborative editing is something we encourage, and most of the time it is a good thing. People come together through shared interests, outreach events or even just having the same articles on their wwatchlist. It only becomes a problem when people lower their standards for each other. I know we had that problem in the past with at least one pair of "good article" reviewers. But when it does get caught, I don't believe anyone who claims that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. So I don't see that clearer wording of policies is the solution, what we really need is clever ways to catch people. ϢereSpielChequers 15:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, I wasn't disagreeing with your position that there is no need to change the verbiage. Was simply commenting on your observation. I think it's pretty clear that since NPP reviewers can't review their own work, there's no need to expand the language on the project page. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Flood of new articles from a class

Just a heads up that there are quite a few articles being added from this class. Quite a few with dubious notability, and most with referencing and structure issues as well. They are appearing in the queue in the mid-late March area. Onel5969 TT me 16:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

doing redirects now..will look soon(hopefully)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
What a bunch of woeful pieces. The instructor of the course should be given a class in WP policy before they're allowed to teach about WP. Onel5969 TT me 16:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
courtesy ping to @Nstrathman:, who is being mentioned here but not named, as the instructor for the course Art History Methodologies Vexations (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Vexations, thanks for that. I actually didn't look up who the actual editor was. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan

I'm not sure if it's acceptable to solicit input for specific AfDs at this talk page; however, I'd appreciate additional input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Federation of Pakistan. I came across the article while patrolling the back of the new pages queue, and in my evaluation it does not meet WP:NORG. The AfD has been relisted twice and appears to be heading towards another relist or a no consensus closure. If any other reviewers could comment to help form a consensus—be it keep or delete—I would appreciate it. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, I don't think this would be considered canvassing, since you have no clue as to how individual editors who read this page will !vote. Onel5969 TT me 21:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Retired from NPP and semi-retired from Wikipedia, I rarely comment here these days. However, there is a discussion (that I did not start) on the VP that will interest reviewers and their NPP coordinators: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Make_autopatrol_an_optional_right_for_administrators. I can't see any reviewers commenting there yet. If you do join the discussion, don't take the stats you see as necessarily definitive - I recommend providing your own. On a side note: ironically, daring to touch on exactly this topic was partly one of the major complaints that got me desysoped 12 months ago ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I swore I participated in that discussion. Thanks for bringing this forward Kudpung. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Original discussion that sealed my fate as an admin is here: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_36#Autopatrolled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I was unaware that WP has experienced such growth that around 1,000 new articles a day are being created by Autopatrolled users. Or am I missing and/or misinterpreting something? (anything's possible since March 2020). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW (again), I just noticed the more or less related thread above at Self-reviewed articles. Interesting... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

AfD article moved to draft. Is this, you know, proper???

Hey. So I patrols Naomi (TV pilot) and AfDs it, 'cos it (to quote li'l ole me) "Fails [WP:GNG]] Non-notable, a TV pilot yet to be filmed/aired - sourced on press announcements and created by a blocked sockpuppet. Previously deleted." Nomination attracts a delete vote before a redlinked (but clearly experienced and occasionally problematic) user pops in and moves it to draft here. Is that proper?? Should the AfD run its course first? Clearly, moving it to draft saves the article from a second deletion and Naomi TV may well, one day if the pilot is filmed (it hasn't been) and greenlighted (it may well not be) as a series, it might become notable. So draftifying it isn't the worst outcome in the world, it just seemed, well, 'off'. Views from greyer heads sought... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Not proper. I moved it back and restored the AfD notice. The user moving it is a fairly low edit account, User:Doomslug1. While I am not sure this is the case here (as Doomslug1 is more established than typical for there), I have observed some UPE/SPA editors moving articles to draft when challenged by deletion (e.g. speedy or prod), as a way to head off editorial attention.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
That's sort of what I had nagging at the back of my tiny mind... Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Alexandermcnabb, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winterysteppe.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

New article

Can someone move Vincentooi808/Educational technology which is in wrong namespace. If I did it, it wouldn't be in the queue since I have autopatrol. Thanks. MB 20:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this is not a new article, it's some kind of rewrite of Educational technology. MB 20:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a misplaced course project thing. I moved it to draft and am leaving them a message about editing the existing article rather than making duplicates. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Was it "in the wrong namespace"? Surely an editor is allowed to work on an article in their own userspace until the time they decide to submit it as a draft for consideration (setting aside issues of copying etc). PamD 23:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
PamD, it wasn't in user space, it was in mainspace with their username as part of the title. They tried to move it from user space to mainspace and did so incorrectly. And a move wouldn't have worked due to the existing article; perhaps that it why it ended up mis-named. MB 23:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @PamD: It needs to be prefixed with "User:" to be a userspace page. Without a user or draft prefix the article will get indexed and appear in searches etc.
@MB: As far as I'm aware, moving articles within mainspace doesn't remove them from the queue if you're autopatrolled, it's only moving them from draft or userspace to mainspace when that occurs. --John B123 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@MB and John B123: Ah, of course, sorry about that - I missed the significant omission of "User:" (as, clearly, did the confused creating editor - who has the excuse of being new around here)! PamD 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history ... the student editor was working in their own userspace and then moved the article into mainspace: it looks as if they were intending to overwrite the existing article with this new version, losing all edit history of the contributions of other editors which they copied into their userspace to start with. Not pretty. PamD 07:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't think that would do anything to obscure attribution, actually. From how I understand it, if I copy the text of an entire article, alter one letter, then paste the entire text back in, the change only shows up as the one letter alteration - the software will not record pasting-over of existing text with the identical material as an edit. So they could just heave over the entire updated article, and earlier edits would still be traceable. The reason why I advised them not to do that is so that smaller bits and pieces can be undone separately (if necessary). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

African Review (disambiguation)

Could somebody have a look at this page.

My understanding of the relevant part of WP:G14: Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page means that articles being disambiguated need to exist. Another editor seems to be getting in a tizz over it.

Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

...puzzling. Yes, this fits WP:G14 to a T. Disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. - there's no wiggle room here for "there may be other pages of that name in the future", the point is that there are none now - see extant. Uanfala, care to clarify ? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Uanfala: also I'm wondering why you think that a) you as a non-admin can "decline speedies" (you can't), and b) why you would think that if one editor's CSD tag is removed by another, that prevents the first editor from placing it again? You seem to be conflating speedy deletion with WP:PROD. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
CSD is for uncontroversial deletions. Anyone who is not the creator of the speedied page may decline the CSD, to let everyone know that at least one independent editor in good faith believes the page should be retained. When that happens, you go to XFD (PROD is technically allowed, but what's the point, unless the CSD was declined for the sole reason that more people should get more time to make their case for retention). Of course, if you believe the editor can be persuaded to withdraw their objection, for example, because they've missed something obvious, enter a dialogue with the editor, but do not edit war to reinstate CSD. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
To add to that, G14 is one of the few criteria (along with G6, G7 and G8) where creators are also allowed to remove the tag. As for African Review (disambiguation), it's also possible to see it as a set index article rather than a dab page. There exist several journals with the name (including in citations throughout Wikipedia), at least some appear likely to be notable, and there's a potential for readers and editors to confuse them. That's why I believe the page is useful. Yes, it doesn't meet MOS:DAB, but the more constructive remedy for that is to bluelink some of the entries rather than have the page deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Take it to AfD, John B123. You've certainly got my vote! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Well what do you know, that (Usedtobecool's note) is actually in the guidelines. Guess I'm just not seeing that many CSDs "declined" by non-Admins (still the wrong, and misleading, term as far as I am concerned). However, I think insisting on a page staying in mainspace contingent on someone else creating several new articles is stretching things a bit far. I will for the time being turn this into a redirect to African Review, and would expect that any editor who wishes it to be a dab or set index instead will provide the material necessary to make it a valid one. - Now we have a pointless redirect instead of a pointless dab page. I suppose that at least cuts out one click in the middle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic scripts of Pakistan

Thus article has been created by a series of cut and paste moves from other articles. I think the topic is notable and there’s nothing wrong with the sourcing, but what should be done about attribution? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming situation as presented, make dummy edit/s to say in the edit summary/ies that previous edits imported text from such and such articles, so please see history of those articles for authorship information. I'd be specific about which particular edits imported from which particular articles, if possible. Add {{copied}} to talk pages of source and destination. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thank you. Mccapra (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd also add {{Uw-copying}} to the creator's talk page. --John B123 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Freshwater Shoreline Management Programs

This is an unusual one, not a single one of the sources actually mentions this term. And I'm having a brain freeze or something. Seems to be an example of WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 TT me 18:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. --John B123 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been nosing into that article before, and backed away in confusion. My best take is that it would actually work if... the title was downcased. "Shoreline management programs" are definitely a thing [11], and this is the freshwater variety. So, remove the implication in title and text body that this is a proper name (I can't find a single ref for that) and it might be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I think renaming might be the way to go. Just not sure what to rename it. It should be something mentioned in the sources, shouldn't it? Onel5969 TT me 21:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969, Agree that it should match something more easily reconciled with the sources JW 1961 Talk 10:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Whitelist addition not clearing

DannyS712, any idea why Milkine's redirects aren't getting checked off by the whitelist bot? signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No idea - the bot has been having some other issues too - maybe because of the migration of replicas that changes multi-wiki queries and I never fixed? I'll take a look --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Appear to be reviewed now, not sure what the cause of the delay was though DannyS712 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of TfD

I've noticed a template discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#Uw-NPR series, that may perhaps be of interest to editors who work on NPP, so I'm posting this notification. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, probably should've posted here. Thanks for doing so. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

European Aquatics Championships

Is participation at the European Aquatics Championships enough to meet WP:NSPORT? From WP:SPORTBASIC: participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics), presumably the World Aquatics Championships are the "highest level" for swimming. The reason for asking is that articles are being created for seems like most of the participants. --John B123 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The articles (or the five or so I spotchecked) have reliable sources which are specifically about the article subjects, about the swimmers. They are not just based on some statistics / entry lists / articles enumerating the participants or their results or other routine coverage. At first glance, the sources weren't very local (town newspapers and so on) but sufficiently widely disseminated as well. So it looks to me that they meet WP:GNG and that the creator, User:Lugnuts, is doing a good job here. WP:NSPORT only indicates which groups are near-certain to be notable (in theory; in many cases it is not correct, sadly), but not meeting NSPORT is not a reason to delete an article if it clearly meets the GNG. After all, if you have a competition in which, say, 50% are notable and 50% aren't, then it would never be included in NSPORT, but it would not be a reason to not have articles on those most notable 50%. Fram (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
For once myself and Fram agree (mark that day in your diary, folks)! I am indeed looking at coverage beyond just swimming in one race. First I target the red links for the finalists in an event, and then work down the list of the heat results. Quite a few of them have won medals at other events, or set national records, etc. If I can find a couple of articles about them, I knock up a quick stub. I reckon this is about five or six biographies per event. Pick one at random that I've worked through, such as Swimming at the 2020 European Aquatics Championships – Women's 50 metre freestyle, and you'll see 62 starts, and about 20 redlinks, including a semi-finalist. Maybe there's more coverage in German for her, but I don't speak German myself. Apart from the word for "hospital" which could come in handy if I ever go back there one day. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I haven't created 40-ish biographies for this one event (62 starts, minus 20 redlinks), only about three or four (check the "what links here" link). The most recent creations are on the second page of that. The other swimmers already had biographies. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Apart from not agreeing that they meet WP:GNG, I must be missing something here. Establishing notability based on "coverage beyond just swimming in one race" would suggest that the article should contain more than just "swimming in one race". If I look at Swimming at the 2020 European Aquatics Championships – Men's 50 metre breaststroke I see there is a German swimmer called Lucas Matzerath, wanting to find out more about him I click on the link to his article that tells me he is a German swimmer who competed in the men's 50 metre breaststroke event at the 2020 European Aquatics Championships, in Budapest, Hungary. I already knew that. If I clicked on the link from Swimming at the 2020 European Aquatics Championships – Men's 100 metre breaststroke, I'd assume somebody had made an error and got confused between the 50 and 100m events. Not sure how this is a "good job"? --John B123 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

China geostubs

With all the recent controversy about Iran geostubs created in bot-like fashion and previous discussion on this board about rivers in Quebec, I see a user called Pizza0614 has started churning out China geostubs in botlike fashion with a single link to an official database rather than proper sourcing. I’ve left them a message but it might be helpful if others reinforced it. Mccapra (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t read Chinese but I am a bit doubtful as to whether all these places really are ‘subdistricts’ as the creator describes them. They are taken from a postcode directory. Some may be subdistricts but others look like streets or other entities. The user is simply dropping names into a standard text at high speed. At least if a Chinese speaker can verify that they are all actually subdistricts that would be of some reassurance. Mccapra (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
In a twist on this, there is another user, Yinweiaiqing, who is moving those articles of Pizza0614 and any other China stubs from draft into mainspace, with zero sourcing to show they meet either GNG or GEOLAND. Because they are Chinese, it is difficult to find valid sourcing, so there is little to do except take them to AfD. However, this might prove just a waste of time, as the first one I did as a test, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touqiao, Jiangsu, folks are simply citing GEOLAND, without obviously looking at the references. Onel5969 TT me 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yinweiaiqing is also producing quite a number of minimal stubs off their own bat. Whilst it's frustrating and these articles add nothing to WP, the "if it exists it's notable" guideline of GEOLAND makes it virtually impossible to do anything about it. --John B123 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
John B123, the one recourse is regarding WP:VERIFY. While if it exists, and it meets the qualifications of GEOLAND, it certainly passes GEOLAND, but the current sourcing does not indicate that these are legally recognized places. Onel5969 TT me 20:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969 The ones I've looked at have checked out (via Google translate) in area lists at the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics. --John B123 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
John B123, the ones I've looked at simply give a zoning code, and don't really specify that they are legally designated populated places. Perhaps I'm simply mis-reading them (always a possibility). Take Feihe, Hefei for example, are you saying the two sources provided satisfy GEOLAND? If so, then I've been incorrect in my interpretation. Onel5969 TT me 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 My understanding of this (which could be wrong} is that these zones are town level administrative units. (It's a bit clearer if you look at a translation[12] of the Chinese version of Feihe, Hefei) Looking at Towns of China, these town-level units consist of a small town that the unit takes its name from plus some villages. The first references give a list of towns, and the second a list of villages within the town level unit. Feihe, Hefei is the next to bottom entry in the first reference and clicking on that takes you to the page used as the second ref. I did try to find some sort of definition of the zoning on http://www.stats.gov.cn/ but didn't get very far having to do it through Google translate.--John B123 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

John B123, sorry, been working on other stuff. Thanks for that, but my issue is concerning WP:VERIFY. Most of these stubs have 1 or 2 sources, like Feihe, Hefei. Neither of those sources actually say it is a town, or that it is in in Baohe District, Hefei, Anhui. The second source does list municipalities, but I can't say where it says those municipalities are part of this town. This is similar to those river articles which were being created last year, where the editor was simply adding vague sources, and saying, "look it up". VERIFY, specifically WP:BURDEN states, "...satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Onel5969 TT me 00:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Back to Draft?

Too many questions this week, sorry. So we have this page, which has been reviewed and moved from Draft to Mainspace. My view is that this should never have been moved from Draft and my inclination would be to Draftify it so that it can be turned into something useful - it's undoubtedly a page about a notable person, it could be a neat page about a notable person but it just needs a lot of work - citations inline, referencing, language, formatting, everything. So can I? Just bung it right back into draft? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

my view is it would survive AfD because, as you say, the subject looks notable. For that reason I would pass it and add tags. The necessary work you describe is just ‘ordinary editing’ that can be done in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Since it was already draftified (by me), once moved back to mainspace it should not be draftified again, as per guidelines. Due to where her art is held, she will pass NARTIST. And I thought it would pass GNG when I sent it to draft, in an attempt to get the editor to provide proper sourcing. My experience, however, is that once passed as reviewed, very little improvement will be made. Will add the footnotes tag, since it is now sourced, but with very few sources. Onel5969 TT me 13:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
So my question's not about notability, I accept her notability. It's the awful quality of the article as it stands, being shoved into mainspace looking like something of WP 2009 vintage. If the solution is tag it, so be it, but to me it seemed like, as onel5969 found, it belongs in draftspace. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Alexandermcnabb, I would agree, but per WP:DRAFTIFY, once returned to mainspace, which would count as an objection to draftifying, to return it to Draft is not an option. The only options are to tag or send to AfD. As Mccapra pointed out, it most likely will survive AfD, with which I concur. The only AfD outcome which might be of benefit would be to have it consensus-!voted to send it back to draft. But that's a long shot, and imho, would waste editor's time. But you're right, it is a crappy article. Onel5969 TT me 15:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
onel5969 concur it would survive (SHOULD survive) AfD and didn't for one second consider that course. Have learned about inability, effectively, to contest the review/acceptance of a tatty draft which, in this case, is annoying. Will duly tag, restricting myself to just three tags because I'm a good boy, I am. But I'd love to throw 'em all at it in a big, black cloud. Le sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, duly reviewed/tagged by onel5969. We learn and move on... :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Lord only knows how I arrived at this thread, but I took a look at Frances Farrand Dodge and trimmed most of the unsourced or fishy items. It was full of the {{efn|}} tag, which is really problematic. It lets editors add notes in their own voice that end up sounding like family history, personal opinion or storytelling.--- Possibly (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
And it's a better article by far for it, Possibly!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Alexandermcnabb, Its important to remember that NPP isn't cleanup, we are triage. It's more important that it's notable than that it's written badly.
There is one other option for articles like this (I don't think it applies in this case but can apply in others); that's to STUBIFY the article. It can work well for articles that don't qualify for DRAFTIFY, but have other major issues like, for example, lots of bunk sources or puffery. Choose the best two sources available and reduce the article to 2-3 sentences. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, yeah, should have mentioned that, earlier. Onel5969 TT me 00:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thumbs up all round. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Curating disambiguation and template pages

Hello. I jotted down in my sandbox some things I've observed about curating disambiguation and template pages. Do any other tips come to mind? Would be good to get this documented if it is complex. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Dab pages:
    • Remind editors to see WP:MOSDAB.
    • Not all have {{dab}} at the bottom - see the list of more specific dab page templates, most commonly {{hndis}}, which takes a sortkey (eg {{hndis|Adams, Douglas}}).
PamD 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Queue Growing

I see the queue has started to grow rapidly again. Any chance we could message all patrollers with a call to do twenty in a week or something to try and get it back under control? Mccapra (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the CW indef is gonna hurt... Elli (talk | contribs) 02:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
?? Mccapra (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Mccapra, one of our high volume reviewers (CommanderWaterford) got indef'd recently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
oh dear, I see. Mccapra (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Really? I'm astonished with that indef, they were getting through a good few on a daily basis JW 1961 Talk 11:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. I arrived here following a message on my talk page. Perhaps we could also recruit some new patrollers this way.--John B123 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
John B123, See User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR_invite_list, There's still an unfinished list that I preselected using Quarry queries a while back before I retired from WP, though each needs final vetting before invite. Hope it's helpful. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere Thanks, that looks really useful. --John B123 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
When I've used that I've had some success at finding new reviewers. Probably time to get a newsletter out which can be good for getting some activity as we remind people about NPP. Suggests about good newsletter content appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Well hell's bells, was unaware of the ANI discussion and subsequent banning of CW. As Liz said on their talk page, I did not know of any issues with them, but only ran into them on NPP and AfD. And yes, that will hurt. Regarding the backlog, I'm just beginning to step back my time on NPP, as the constant battles and personal attacks are beginning to once again wear on me. We had gotten it down below 2000, but it has begun to creep up. Some of that has to do with a plethora of classes posting their WP articles (I've come across at least 20 different classes in the last month), the vast majority of the articles are not ready for mainspace. Another factor is a very prolific stub creator lost their autopatrolled right in the last month. I've invited 6 what I consider promising editors to join NPP, but all have declined. Onel5969 TT me 23:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969, I hear ya! CW went through my NPP training course which is pretty hardcore, and yes, he will be missed. I don't quite understand why he responded the way he did because he was not a spontaneously combative-type editor, and was truly devoted to his work here. He may have over-extended himself, and then felt unappreciated when criticized, which then escalated out of control. It was just one of those freaky things that could have easily been avoided had he not taken it personally. Atsme 💬 📧 14:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

the biggest backlogs I see are in South Asia and East Asia. Lots bios and film articles from India and lots of tv/pop culture stuff from Korea. Few of us can plough through something refbombed with dozens of sources in Malayalam or Korean. We really need more native speakers of Asian languages. Oh, and people to deal with the endless stream of US college athletes. Most of the other stuff seems reasonably under control. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Mccapra, Asian language speakers would really help a lot. Personally I don't review college athletes and fictional characters anymore. Too many arguments. Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Dittoes on college athletes. Way out of the comfort zone! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I will try to review those India related articles. --Gazal world (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to recruit some others too... hoping more people will step up. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I previously asked Ktin (who does a lot of good work tidying up/sourcing Indian articles at ITN) perhaps they might be interested as there is an awful lot of articles that I (and I presume many others) have to scroll past for lack of language skills. JW 1961 Talk 11:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added a note on the talk pages of various Asian Wikiprojects (I didn't realise there were so many of them) in the hope that might bring in some reviewers with a knowledge of Asian languages. --John B123 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, good move! Mccapra (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The language/cultural barrier is something I've observed for some time to be a large obstacle to effective patrolling (and also AfC reviewing, but that's probably a separate matter). I'm not an NPR, but I do regularly scan the AlexNewArtBot/InceptionBot feed for potential Thailand-related articles, which is an area I'm familiar with. For country-specific subject areas like this, it's quite clear that most reviewers would have a much harder time than someone familiar with the area in figuring out the appropriateness of an article and identifying problems. (I experience the same when looking at other countries' feeds.) I don't closely follow NPP, so pardon me if this is already done or has previously been suggested, but maybe the use of subject area-specific listings to gain the attention of reviewers familiar with the areas is a practice that could be highlighted, and maybe integrated into the NPP process? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a broad equivalent of that in the topic categories determined by bot-assisted NPP sorting. With regard to language competencies, this unfortunately stops at the subcontinental level ("East Asia", "North Asia", etc.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not helpful for Asia topics if we are going by language. For the time being, I am going through the East Asia, and Southeast Asia categories. SEA cat is limited, since it consists of other languages which I am not familiar with, like Tagalog, but Singapore is within it. While East Asia is where China and Taiwan articles should be listed. – robertsky (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Identifying patrollers

Teahouse volunteer here. Someone asked at the Teahouse how to identify a patroller for a particular article. I saw that the documentation says you should notify the patroller if you are unpatrolling an article, but I don’t see how you can identify them unless the article history shows a draft being approved. If it was just created in namespace, is there a log of some sort? If not, could this be a Village Pump request to add to page statistics? Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_do_I_know_who_reviewed_a_page? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Special:Log/pagetriage-curation is what you want - for example, Special:Log/pagetriage-curation?page=Test. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and uh, Special:Log/patrol - both are relevant to the process. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
You might find User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks useful. It adds a set of links to the top right of pages. The log link opens a pop-up that lists all logged actions for that page, so you can see who reviewed (patrolled) it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a useful add-on, thanks for the link. --John B123 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure looks very useful, thanks JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the last patroller when unpatrolling is carried out automatically by the page curation tool FWIW. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

NPP applicants and possibility of article experience requirement

I've been wondering if we should add a requirement that before applying for user rights or NPP school, the user has created at least 1 article (above a stub) or has comparable experience? How can we expect reviewers to relate to article creators, or even know what's involved in creating articles if they've neither created one, nor been through a review themselves? Atsme 💬 📧 14:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I think in practice we do effectively expect editors to either have a solid track record creating articles, or else a similarly strong record engaging with deletion processes (and the best candidates have both). It may, however, be time to update the requirements text to make it more representative of our current practice. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, I don't think that creating an articles is a useful metric. Starting an article is not a big deal. Experience in evaluating sources, the MOS, categorization, copy editing, the deletion policy is all relevant. Why not just ask: "What relevant experience do you have?" Vexations (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
In my NPP school, one of the exercises was creating an article via AFC and getting it accepted. That'd be one angle to approach it from (adding it to your NPP school curriculum). Hope this idea helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Good idea, NL!! I'm going to add it to my curriculum. I still believe there should be a written prerequisite per Rosguill's response. Vex - I understand what you're saying but without the hands-on experience of creation, reviews may contain sharp edges on what should be a well-rounded process, particularly as it relates empathetically to the article creator whose work gets nominated for AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 17:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, agreed. I hope that the experience of seeing one's work nominated for deletion makes reviewers more empathic to new content creators. Vexations (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that is an excellent idea. I always wondered why it was never formally stated. For folk who write articles, it is not a big deal, but for those who haven't, there is a weight of expectation that must be satisfied. It ticks a lot of boxes quickly , i.e. visual evidence. scope_creepTalk 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, there is always the possibility of editors who work exclusively on improving and expanding on existing articles and thus having the relevant knowledge sans the initial step of create a new article. – robertsky (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Whilst it can be useful as an indicator, I'm not sure of the need for it to be a requirement. Looking at some of the articles that come through NPP, the creation of the article doesn't give confidence they would know enough to tackle NPP. I don't find anything wrong with the current system of those granting to NPP rights using their judgement and taking an overall view of a candidate's previous contributions. Adding constraints would possibly disbar people who could be useful patrollers. --John B123 (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the input, but it appears that maybe trainers working NPP school may be seeing more of a need via our applicants and training sessions that can get pretty involved whereas day-to-day reviewers are not teaching or monitoring the work of students. There's a chance that a reviewer's inexperience may have resulted in them not seeing the potential of an article that would have passed with some CE and sourcing, or better formatting (and I have seen such instances during my training exercises). Instead of fixing the article, they sent it to AfD, and then got into a spat with the article creator, all of which could have been avoided. NPP is not AfC - AfC approves newly created articles and it's at that point the article should contain all the necessary ingredients and be ready for NPP review. NPP then determines what it needs in order to remain in mainspace. Sometimes an article just needs more RS, or a bit of copy editing, formatting, or maybe it's a stub that could use a bit of expansion - I have seen that at AfD and have salvaged articles in such cases. The least we can do is advise the article creator, and develop some form of collaboration to get the article right, and I'm thinking editor to editor is a much better approach than tagging. Anyway, that is how I approach NPP and the articles in the queue. We all learn from our experiences, and I feel fortunate that I was granted the opportunity to teach at NPP school, and to help new editors get their sea legs so that they are able to navigate some of WP's roughest seas. I also believe that some of our best admins/arbs got their sea legs right here at NPP, which speaks volumes about this process - at least to me it does. Atsme 💬 📧 15:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I apologize that I'm getting to this a bit late. My perspective remains, no doubt informed by the ways I got this permission, that I am going to look for reasons to give someone NPR rather than not. So a track record of high quality article creation is great and I've certainly given or offered to give NPR on that basis - one such example. However, I'm going to look for other reasons too. If someone has a lot of productive experience at AfC that's going to be enough for me to grant the permission. Having someone create an article through AfC is a good exercise and if I start accepting NPP students again (which I hope to in a month or so) I'll probably use it. But I don't think article creation is the only way one can be a good NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We should also consider that a person who has not made and articles from scratch but has expanded a number of stubs may be suitable for the NPR right. Not sure I’m a fan of a bright line here. “Personally familiar with the article creation process” might be a valid criteria to add. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

National anthem of the Republic of Afghanistan

I can't quite work out what is going on here. Should the 1973-1978 section in Afghan National Anthem be restored? It used to exist here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, I was thinking the same thing myself, have looked at it 3 times now. I think we simply merge it into the over-arching article on all the different ones over the years, sans the lyrics. Onel5969 TT me 00:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I have added a 1973-1978 section in Afghan National Anthem containing a {{main}} link to National anthem of the Republic of Afghanistan. I'll leave it to you if you think a merge is appropriate, although all the other sections have their own main articles. I think these are all a bit of a mess and poorly sourced, but probably have potential to be improved. Although I am not sure about the copyright status of the lyrics, there is a lot of revdel history in Afghan National Anthem. Polyamorph (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Polyamorph, I think they're poorly sourced, but there's no harm in letting then stay. Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Back of the queue - has this ever happened to anyone else

When looking at the back of the queue i came across Matthew 12:47 which was in 2006 made into a redirect but changed to an article today (by an author who creates many of these bible verse article) Strange thing was on the page curation tab I couldn't mark as reviewed (it just wouldn't go green) but if I added a tag (such as under review) I could then mark it as reviewed with that check box ticked. JW 1961 Talk 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The Lord works in mysterious ways…… Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Mccapra, ha ha, I really like that reply, explains a lot of what goes on goes with little system bugs! JW 1961 Talk 19:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Joseywales1961 - no, that's never happened to me, and I almost exclusively do the back of the queue. What has happened, is sometimes I won't be able to click on the "page info" button (which is one of the first things I do to see a brief edit history and the copyvio report). But that's only happened 5-6 times. And beautiful response Mccapra. Onel5969 TT me 19:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Both those things have happened to me, both page info (a really useful button) and review button both frozen out. I normally just take it as an excuse to take a break and come back later! Polyamorph (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Advice regarding Draft:Prince Johann George V

Hi folks, after some advice for this one please. It looks like a non-notable musician; certainly I can't find anything about him in reliable sources (and his stuff on youtube has less than 100 views). However the creator seems to be comitted to the view that primary sources are fine. They've immediately deleted the last 3 reviews from the draft and resubmitted it. I'm not sure whether to just leave it to languish in the queue, to reject it, or to CSD it... Any thoughts? Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like an AfD case to me. Not sure about speedy. Mccapra (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Can you send a draft to AfD? A quick look on google shows there are secondary sources available so it may survive an Afd. I'd be inclined to ignore it. The creator has been told multiple times about primary sources, if they can't accept that then there's little you can do. --John B123 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Erhh, yes indeed…. went straight to the article and managed not to spot that it’s a draft. I blame the heat. Mccapra (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Royalty

Greetings. Can anyone point me to the policy which says that ANY royalty is automatically notable? Recently, there have been a spate of poorly sourced articles about Korean royalty being written, such as So-ui Yu. Many of them have large swaths of uncited material. I attempted to move some of them to draftspace, and responded on the editor's talkpage when they asked what the issue is. However, there have been no attempts to go back and improve the articles. And several have been moved back into mainspace without improvement by other editors. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no such policy, of course, although "real" royalty (and not, say, modern descendants of the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hanover or whatever) probably are all sourceable, in principle. Surtsicna might be a good person to ask about particular examples. -JBL (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A lot of them are about concubines and other figures who don’t seem automatically notable to me at all, though some may be GNG passes. I must admit I’ve avoided them all. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
BTW, they are still at it, as of today, creating these stubs. As of now, there are almost 200 in in the queue.Onel5969 TT me 22:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit that I have avoided them too for not knowing quite what to do about them. Agree about concubines, one of them I looked at was the 27th wife. As well as being undersourced, some of the references that are there are from a blog. --John B123 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need help from WikiProject Korea. Mccapra (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be helpful if somebody from WPK could look at them. --John B123 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Mxx roads

There have been articles created by the same user over the past few days List of Mxx roads (such as List of M95 roads), all of which have one road in South Africa listed. For each article there is already a well populated List of highways numbered xx (eg List of highways numbered 95). There are 74 of these articles. I'm not sure we need a list of M number roads as well as List of highways numbered xx? --John B123 (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it, I was also wondering what on earth to do with all these things. Also see the user's contribs, large numbers of page moves of South African roads, too - at a quite blistering pace. I can't see any user working to this scale at this speed as anything other than alarming - and I agree, the articles are of seemingly no value - and what about UK and Irish M roads and anywhere else in the world that uses M as a motorway designation? So how do you a) stop the user wasting his time b) nuke 'em all? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of redirecting them to the corresponding List of highways numbered xx articles. All the South African M roads linked to were created by the same editor. I don't know if this is an attempt to de-orphan these articles, or possibly just increase their number of article created total? --John B123 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I'd tend to put the whole boiling up for deletion. These would be perfectly superfluous as redirects. Even if the AfD outcome is to redirect, this issue would benefit from wider input, as it always looks a bit dodgy / tends not to stick when a NP reviewer unilaterally redirects an entire series of articles like that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
List of M40 roads is an example showing how wildly incomplete these lists are - compare to List of highways numbered 40 which has UK M40 and Michigan M-40 but doesn't include the South African one: daft. No need for these separate listings, redirect all to the existing lists. PamD 18:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought all of these were severly lacking, I would be inclined to agree with Elmdae to AfD them all for wider discussion and let them be re-directed via that process if need be JW 1961 Talk 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Per WP:MULTIAFD I've nominated List of M99 roads at AfD as a "test case". --John B123 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion.

Since we get a popup of previously deleted pages on NewPagesfeed in red colour. I wonder if we could make them links to previous deletion discussions. That would be really helpful. Thankyou. signed, Iflaq (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how technically feasible this would be, but in the majority of cases where flagged 'Previously deleted' in the new pages feed, the articles have been previously deleted by speedy, prod, moving to draft etc rather than AfD. --John B123 (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
May be it would give a general idea about the previous issues with the article. Even in minority the previous AfD discussions can be helpful. signed, Iflaq (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if you already know this but I didn't when I started NPP and searched at AFD for any deletion discussions when a page was marked 'previously deleted'. The page log gives all the details of previous deletions, recreations etc, including a link to any AfD discussions. The log can be accessed from a link at the top left of the article's history page. --John B123 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you install User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks, it adds a number of links top right of the article, one of which is to the log. --John B123 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@John B123 Thanks for the user script. ❤️ Happy Editing. signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC Reviewing

Hai. I'm Ken. I'm a reviewer at AfC. Recently, I had my own flaws in AfC reviewing, and had received a backlash on it. So, I would like to have a deep study on AfC reviewing, and would like to be thorough with most of the criterias in AfC. Can anyone be my mentee? I need to know more about it so badly. Thank you. Regards, Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 16:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ken Tony: What was the problem exactly.? I can give you some help certainly. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hai Scope creep. I declined some drafts because it had only one or two unreliable sources, and declined some drafts because they were translated from another Wikipedia. Before, I didn't knew that it is allowed to publish drafts that is translated from another Wikipedia, if they are given attribution properly. So, I don't want to be in a trouble again, and is very motivated to study more about AfC that would allow me to be not to be trapped in a similar situation ever again. Will you help me? Yours faithfully, Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yip. Sure, Lets crack on. Do you want to review a couple or half a dozen difficult Afcs, or have you something you want to focus on first? scope_creepTalk 18:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yip I can see your talk page. I see what you mean. I do WP:NPP reviews as well if you need some help there. scope_creepTalk 18:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: My main topic is sports, especially football. I also review Indian-related drafts and some random drafts. I would like to be more familiar with all the necessary guidelines linked with AfC. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 19:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I never noticed your on the NPP board, mostly it is a much of much ness for AFC. Slightly different in bits. How about we start with some Indian ones first and then some random ones, and then fitba ones, as they tend to be quite small articles, one the whole. Lets have a look. scope_creepTalk 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedway

There have been a lot of articles created lately for Speedway riders, such as Kenny Ingalls. WP:NMOTORSPORT is geared towards individual competitors rather than teams. The top league in the UK, SGB Premiership, is fully professional but fails (1) of WP:NMOTORSPORT where "fully professional" is defined as where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. Speedway teams rely on sponsorship rather than prize money.

(3) of WP:NMOTORSPORT: Competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest. Would the SGB Premiership be considered as of national interest? I tend to think it is but would like other people's opinions before marking these articles as patrolled. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

John B123, without much first hand knowledge of the sport, I'd have to say that it was of national interest, just not sure how deep that interest is. Onel5969 TT me 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Marked Reviewed

Why is some pages marked automatically as reviewed when I edit those? I had tagged Kello Media orphan using twinkle but that was marked reviewed automatically. Similar happened previously when I tagged page WeJosRock (Now speedy deleted) speedy deletion using twinkle then it was marked reviewed automatically. Can anyone explain this? Hasan (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hasan. Twinkle has a checkbox "Mark the page as patrolled/reviewed" at the bottom of the window. This is checked by default, you need to uncheck it if you don't want to mark the page as reviewed. --John B123 (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi John B123, I'm facing same problem again. I don't know what to do. It is automatically marking pages as patrolled when I tag them using Page Curation. I've unchecked PROD, CSD, Tag and XFD (deletion discussions) boxes in Twinkle-Preferences but still marking automatically as patrolled. Why?
I had tagged 24 Days (film) as orphan, added notability tag to Jesca Wilfredy (now drafted) and added uncategorised tag to Walk Japan using Page Curation then it was marked as patrolled automatically. Why? Will be same result if I tag them using twinkle? Hasan (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
​ No, the result will not be the same if you use Twinkle—Twinkle and Page Curation are completely different tools. You will notice that on the page curation toolbar there is a checkbox saying "mark this page as reviewed" just above the button saying "Add x selected tags". You need to uncheck this if you don't want to mark the page as reviewed. As far as I know there is not a way to uncheck this by default, so if you don't want to manually uncheck it when adding tags just use Twinkle for this purpose. The page curation suite can be buggy so this is what I would recommend doing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Lord Bolingbroke, Thanks- I asked "Will be same result if I tag them using twinkle?" this question because I don't want any page marked as patrolled automatically. I want to do that manually. So if I use Twinkle then it will not be marked as patrolled automatically? Yeah, I did same unchecked pages manually which were patrolled automatically. Hasan (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
You can go to your Twinkle tag preferences and deselect the option to mark pages as patrolled by default. Same applies for CSD tagging. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks John B123 and Lord Bolingbroke for your help. I've deselected both options. If I face any inconvenience, will update you. Hasan (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC submission template in mainspace - wording question

Hatted/transcluded section
See this comment as background. Please modified the current text in Template:AfC submission/created

This article, created, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon.

to

This article, recently created, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. This tag should be removed after vetting the draft's acceptance history.

The present text is misleading and implies that the article was actually reviewed by a "reviewer". In the vast majority of of instances this tag appears in mainspace it is due to the article creator either jumping the gun (and copy-pasting a draft to main space without a review) or ignoring the review and copy pasting the draft (or an old version thereof) to main space. The existence of this tag is a red flag that merits attention. The present text "endorses" and "protects" the article from further review (as most experienced editors AGF vs. AfC reviewers regarding article notability and vetting), misleading readers.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I submitted this following your comment.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: From what I can see at Template:AfC submission/created, it's supposed to give a warning if the draft has non-redirect content on it. So this would only be an issue in cut-and-paste moves, right? Or is that not working as intended? I have other thoughts, but first I want to make sure I understand the problem here. Also, where you see created, that's just the template copying its own {{SUBPAGENAME}}; in an article, "created" would be replaced with whatever the article's name is. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: "created" doesn't appear in draft space (at least according to the template documentation, it shows in mainspace only). Look at this page version (article up for deletion...) in main space. It has "AfC submission|t||ts=20210219001314|u=Camrybrown|ns=118|demo=" on the top, with the "T" parameter, which in draft appears as Template:AfC submission/draft. However in mainspace this appears with Template:AfC submission/created in accordance with the template documentation of this showing up in mainspace. The current text is misleading in that it says this was checked by an accredited reviewer, whereas in 99% of the cases this tag is still on an article in mainspace it has hijacked the AfC process, bypassing reviewers or ignoring reviewers' rejections.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Tamzin, I think what Eostrix is getting at is that the current wording implies that the submission has been "reviewed", whereas if an autoconfirmed user 'jumps the gun' and moves a submission to mainspace themselves that won't have happened. Agreed with regard to your other comments. firefly ( t · c ) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I understand the rationale here. My point is that the code at Template:AfC submission/created looks like it's already supposed to address this: 
{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{#if: {{#invoke:Redirect|isRedirect|Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}||----
'''WARNING:  [[Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] is {{PAGESIZE:Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} bytes.''' This may be a "copy and paste" move.  To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider [[WP:HISTMERGE|merging the history]] of the AfC draft into this article.  Non-administrators should consider placing <nowiki>{{Histmerge|</nowiki>{{#ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/|Draft:}}{{SUBPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> at the top of this article before removing this ''AfC submission'' template.<includeonly>[[Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves]]</includeonly>}}<!-- #if:#invoke: -->}}<!-- #ifexist: -->
}}<!-- if:{{NAMESPACE}} -->
I'm gonna try to figure this out, but thought I'd reply real quick to explain what I'm talking about. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is the text saying it was "blessed" by the AfC team. The typical flow here now is that a non-autoconfirmed user submits a draft to AfC, in the process gains more than 10 edits (userpage, draft), and after some time (>4 days) when he is auto-confirmed (after going through the motions of AfC, even if unreviewed or rejected) posts it into main space. The requirement for auto-confirmed for creation has increased this type of flow, because users who were "forced" into AfC due to not being AC typically becoming AC just by submitting one article and waiting for the review... I don't see the ""copy and paste" in the one I pointed at (so that's something else here that's buggy maybe), but that wouldn't solve the problem of the text implying that the article was "blessed" by the AfC review team.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Tamzin, ah right, sorry, I'll butt out and leave you to it! :) firefly ( t · c ) 08:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see the issue here: @Eostrix:​ The code there is working as intended; the issue is that the article's creator put it under a different title than the draft. I went to the redirect Virtual Team Maturity Model and previewed adding {{AfC submission/created}}, and it behaved as expected.
I can't think of any way that we could check for drafts with different titles short of getting a bot to do it, so with that out of the way, yeah, I agree that the message shouldn't imply AfC approval where none exists. My only remaining question, then, is coming up with wording that makes sense to:
  1. An AfC reviewer who isn't done with the move (the original use case)
  2. A user who's just done a copy-paste move (but without implying they've definitely done something wrong, since there are good-faith reasons this could happen)
  3. A passing new page patroller
  4. A random editor who happens to stumble on the page
I feel like your second sentence would only take care of #3 there. Radical thought here, but does group #2 need to know that they've done this? If it's a good way to spot copy-paste moves, I'd think we wouldn't want to bring it to their attention that they've done so. What about taking advantage of user-right-specific -show classes? Wrap the whole ambox in class=extendedconfirmed-show (given that most of these users won't have XC, and all AfC reviewers must have it), and then: 
This article, {{SUBPAGENAME}}, has an [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] tag despite being in [[Wikipedia:Namespaces|article space]]. If you are an AfC reviewer, please remember to remove this template. <span class="patroller-show sysop-show">If you are not the reviewer, '''NOTE''': AfC submission tags in mainspace often indicate a [[WP:C&P|copy-paste move]] from draftspace. Please check the history involved before removing this tag.</span>
Thoughts? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC) c/e 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tamzin: You are correct that vs. #2 we don't want to spill the WP:BEANS too much (as we do not want them removing it, if they did it, as we want this to flag other editors), I suggest we just tweak it so it won't imply to #3 and #4 that the AfC crew blessed it (which makes deletion/draftification less likely). The typical editors doing this are less experienced (the more experienced COI operations either shepherd this through AfC the whole way, or alternatively game AC accounts and post to main space directly). You could check the user right's of the mover/creator, but all that is really required for #1 is some message implying that the tag is transitory and should be removed eventually by experienced editors of some sort - without implying a "blessed" status (which acts as a shield vs. review by others).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just as a side point, I've done two things in the interim: first, I've pointed WT:AFC to this discussion to get more input, and I've disabled the edit request. The reason for the second is that there are plenty of folks watching the page now, and I'm happy to implement the change once a consensus is reached. Feel free to continue the thread of discussion above mine, or continue below. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. Updating I cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, as in my mind this is a new article patrol issue.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • support I agree it should be changed. If reviewed by an AfC reviewer the AFCH tool should remove very quickly or in the rare case doing it manually it should be removed quite quickly so having it as stands has no practical use for AfC and is misleading suggesting it has been reviewed for cut-paste or regular moves. As some editors move or add a redirect manually the template should not try to autodetect a redirect to assume any reviewing was done. Also I agree with adding "class=extendedconfirm-show". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I've come across this a few times during NPP. The message

    This article, created, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon.

    seems to occur when a page is moved from draft without going through AfC, for example here.[13] When it is a copy and paste move the message is

    This is a misplaced articles for creation submission. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion. Note: If you are not an administrator or page mover please tag the redirect left behind after the move for deletion using {{db-r2}}

    such as here.[14] When I come across the former I assume that an AfC reviewer hasn't been involved as it's unlikely they would have moved it to mainspace before completing their review. I would suggest both messages are replaced with

    This article, recently created, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion. Note: If you are not an administrator or page mover please tag the redirect left behind after the move for deletion using {{db-r2}}

    --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    @John B123: I mostly agree, but in the many cases in which this is a cut and paste move or other duplication (newer/older revision) of an existing draft then moving it back to draft is not really an option, this would result in multiple drafts of the same page. Draftifying is less likely than a non-AfC new page by a newbie.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Eostrix: If it was a straight copy and paste from draft, I'd redirect it draft and tag the redirect {{db-r2}}. If it had been "improved" in mainspace but draftification was still appropriate it gets more complicated, as does the situation where the draft has been created by one editor and the article in mainspace was a copy from a different editor's sandbox. If an inexperienced editor tried to move it to draft and a draft already existed they'd probably give up when it didn't work. A more experienced editor would probably know how to get round this. The AfC error message needs to be simple not an essay covering every possibility. --John B123 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Eostrix: what is the "vetting" you're referring to in this text? Why would we need to vet (and presumably consider moving back to draft)? Why wouldn't this appropriately just stay in mainspace (with the tag removed) and get processed by NPP? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Calliopejen1: Vetting as in review, and particular reviewing the AfC history, article creator history (in particular declines and / or speedy deletions of the draft), and in some cases other accounts (AfC tags like maintenance tags with old dates coming from a new account with no history on the article are often signs that there is another account involved). Certainly some such articles are appropriate for main space, but very often these articles (with AfC tags) are created by newbies who either are tired of waiting for an AfC review or worse are main spacing the article after it was rejected at AfC or even speedy deleted in draft. Assuming the article, including copy-pasted versions of it, had a history in draft space then that history is often relevant for the mainspace review.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Eostrix, for placing this request in response to my complaint. I have making this complaint from time to time for more than a year. As the other editors have noted, that message in particular means that the AFC submission template is present in an article in article space. It is accurate in one situation, if the AFC reviewer closes the window while the accept script is still running, which can happen by accident, or due to impatience by the reviewer. It is almost accurate in another situation, if acceptance of a draft was blocked by a redirect, and a reviewer tags the redirect for G6, and an admin deletes the redirect, and moves the draft to article space. If the admin is not an AFC reviewer, they may not know about the cleanup that is done by the accept script. However, it usually means that the article was moved from draft space to article space by a Move by the author. In that case, the article should be reviewed in the same manner as any other new article, and may be good, and may not be ready for article space. As other reviewers have noted, sometimes the article was declined or rejected by AFC, or was in article space and was draftified, and the author may be move-warring. The message that is displayed is usually wrong, and is confusing because it is wrong. Sometimes there are reasons why messages should be accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think John B123's third option above is the closest to what we really want to say. To me, the main thing this template should tell is us that the article, at some point, was in the draft space, and is now in the Article space, and it should be evaluated. It should check the status of the draft-of-the-same-name and give relevant possibilities:
    1. Draft is a redirect, which indicates either an accept-that-didn't-complete or a move out-of-process by the creator or a non-reviewer, and the template can likely can just be removed (or the page returned to draft space).
    2. Draft is not a redirect, in which case there should be a warning that it might be a copy/paste pagemove and should be evaluated based on that fact.
    3. Draft does not exist, which means it should be evaluated as normal (and maybe indicate a check for a copy/paste pagemove from somewhere).
John's language fits reasonably well with option #1, with a few tweaks. Keep in mind we don't want to have too much text in the banner. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I mostly agree. I also think Tamzin's suggestion to wrap this with "class=extendedconfirmed-show" is worthwhile as AfC and NPP reviewers will have this flags and this avoids spilling the beans vs. those who do out of process moves / copy-pastes.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Relatedly, I'm mostly happy with John's wording, but I do think it's good to avoid bothering our readers with admin stuff when possible. Might I suggest something like this?
This article, {{PAGENAME}}, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space <span class="extendedmover-show sysop-show">without leaving a redirect, or moving it</span> and tagging the redirect for {{tl|db-r2}} deletion.
And that's with the whole template wrapped in extendedconfirm-show, as Eostrix and I have discussed. Also, I would reïterate that "recently created" is not actually part of the template's language; in articles it will say the article's name there. In this proposal I'm changing {{SUBPAGENAME}} to {{PAGENAME}} to make that more clear to users looking at the template page (where it would now say This article, Template:AfC submission/created, given that the two magic words always have the same output in mainspace (and this template cannot display in any other namespace). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See dicussion on {{AfC submission/created}} which appears on mainspace articles (not in draft). Transclusion above, but please place comments at the discussion directly.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Another tool

Hey guys, I'm also occasionally on Reddit and 1 of the topic pages (called subreddits) there is WikipediaVandalism (https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaVandalism/). Previously I assumed wp-editors were aware of it and kept an eye out, but I just reverted vandalism that was reported there 11 hours ago, so maybe not. Because this subreddit has over 15000 members looking for, quote: Hilarious Edits Found on Wikipedia, it obviously can be quite usefull. Dutchy45 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Editors who continue to produce really poor stubs

While the recent case of a very well-known content creator led to their having their autopatrolled rights revoked, there is, in my opinion, a much worse tendency which I've seen trending over the last year. There are several editors, there are 4 who immediately jump to mind, who continue to create crappy little articles, many times a single line and a single reference, many of which show no indication of notability. Others are more fleshed out, but incredibly poorly referenced. Several years ago, there was an editor who worked mostly on articles from American history, where the same issue prevailed. That editor not only had their autopatrol taken away, they were required to file all their new articles through AfC. This has resulted in hundreds of quality articles being produced. This wouldn't be an issue, except if these new articles are draftified, they are almost immediately returned to mainspace with comments along the line, "Take it to AfD", without any improvement. When taken to AfD, none of the articles survive without improvement, but it just seems an onerous burden to put on NPP patrolers and those editors who participate in AfD. In addition, most of these articles are given a chance for improvement, sitting for month(s) in the queue asking for improvement. That said, it's one thing to create a one-line article with a single source along the lines, "XXXX served in the South Carolina House of Representatives from 1888-1890", vs. articles which state, "XXXX was a Belgian sculptor". As long as the former article has a reference which satisfies WP:VERIFY, marking it reviewed and tagging appropriately is perfectly fine. Thoughts on how to approach this? Onel5969 TT me 19:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I know who you are talking about! Requiring them to put all their new articles through AfC would seem a solution but I'm not sure how we could go about that.
There's also another editor that's been creating numerous stubs for athletes who aren't at present notable but have been selected for the Olympics. I've been leaving them in the queue as once the Olympics start they will meet WP:NATHLETE. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
John B123, hi, yeah, it's more than one. See my reply below. Onel5969 TT me 02:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I think draftifying, then taking to AfD, is what can be done. It's a burden on the AfD process but if these people realize they will have to put more effort into every article, hopefully they can do so up-front.
We could also talk to them - and if they refuse, take them to ANI for (potentially) the AfC-requirement sanction. I don't like dramaboards but it is important to prevent disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Elli, talking to them doesn't appear to work. Some of them are actually getting worse in their referencing and article quality. I hate taking something to ANI, don't think I've ever done it. But you may be right. Will wait to get more input. Onel5969 TT me 02:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: sadly, if talking doesn't work then ANI is the next venue to prevent disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This is probably the required sequence. Draftify and try to talk in person; if that doesn't work, take repeatedly published unsuitable articles to AfD; if that goes on, take to ANI and suggest AfC restriction. Continued production of unsourced or non-notable stubs is disruptive behaviour (especially if advice/concerns keep being ignored) and has been sanctioned as such. And sometimes people do manage to get their act together before that happens - e.g. Starzoner, other problems notwithstanding, was creating usable stubs after several months of constant nagging. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Prompted to review a new user page?

The NPP tool shows up on new user pages; are we supposed to 'review' those as well, or do we just leave those alone? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: feel free to mark them as reviewed if non-problematic - I do. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to do so, just leave them alone. signed, Rosguill talk 23:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Rosguill, there's no reason to, so I don't waste my time, but Elli's right, if there's no issue with them (e.g. they are promotional, in some cases), then there's no harm in marking them reviewed. Onel5969 TT me 00:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yash Kumar

Can someone with admin or page mover rights move this mess back to the user talk of User:Pbk9f, It showed up on the back of the queue. Amazing what we find! JW 1961 Talk 19:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 my apology. I am trying to publish this page. any help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbk9f (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pbk9f I'll leave some helpful links on your talk page now that it is fixed JW 1961 Talk 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draftifying and copyvio

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T286383

We've identified an issue regarding draftification and CopyPatrol, which is a tool that logs potential copyright violations found by EranBot. If a new article is flagged for potential copyvio, but a reviewer moves to draftspace without leaving a redirect or the redirect is subsequently deleted, Community Tech bot will mark the case as resolved because it thinks the article has been entirely deleted from Wikipedia, and it is removed from the list of open cases at CopyPatrol. Meanwhile, the draft is not re-inspected or re-flagged because no new text was added, just a page move. A task to fix this has been opened by Diannaa at phab:T286383.

In the meantime, if you are about to draftify a new article that has been marked by the bot for potential copyvio (which shows up in "Potential issues" in the New Pages Feed and in the curation toolbar), please be sure to also address the copyvio concerns or check with someone experienced in copyright investigations, so that it doesn't slip through the cracks at CopyPatrol. Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 has more information on how to handle suspected copyright violations. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Query

I'm not sure where to post this query so I'm posting it here. Over the past month, speedy deletion taggings have gone way, way down. Two or three weeks ago I took a photo of my laptop screen one day when there were 0 pages tagged for CSD because I thought that it was so unusual but I've seen it happen several times since then and there are frequently less than 10 pages tagged for speedy deletion at any particular time. Since many of the pages tagged CSD were done so by editors patrolling new pages, I'm just wondering what's going on. I know two of the most prolific patrollers received indefinite blocks this spring but initially that didn't have a substantial impact on the tagging, not like what we're seeing right now.

So, I wonder if patrollers seeing fewer problematic pages or are people taking time off for the summer or is there just less new editor activity? Just thought I'd pose the question and see if anyone had any ideas or even had noticed the change. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My guess based on my experiences with tagging this week would be more admins working CSD, in addition to the usual ones. DanCherek (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Liz, hi. Not sure what's causing the drop. Other than G5 CSD's, I usually average about 2-3 day, and the vast majority of those are either G11 or G12's. With the occasional A7 or G4 thrown in. Just checked my log, and I'm at 12 so far this month, which is just about average for me. And I don't think there are less new articles being created. We've seen a steady creep upwards in our backlog over the last few months. Onel5969 TT me 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't considered that possibility that it might be a difference in admin activity. So, if this is the case, pages that were tagged that might sit around for hours before getting reviewed and possibly deleted months ago are now being reviewed soon after they've been tagged. I know that prior to the pandemic, I checked out the CSD categories infrequently and I now check them throughout the day. And that might be true for other admins, too.
Those numbers help, Onel5969, as I know you are very active. Since I review G13 stale drafts, I've seen big swings in numbers of expiring drafts depending on the time of the year but that tells me more about what was happening six months ago, not this week. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Around 1250 pages were deleted on 5 June and around 1575 on 5 July. Most deletions go through CAT:CSD but some days could have boosted totals from discussed mass deletions or untagged mass speedy deletions. Having checked a few more dates, it seems like deletions are holding steady at 1500±300 over the last month. There must be a table somewhere of how many pages get deleted, who deletes the most and under which criteria (or must be able to be generated with proper queries). Techsmart people should know. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, where did you get this figure? I'm not disagreeing, I am just always on the look out for Wikipedia stats. I'd really like to know the number of deletions per criteria or deletion area. As far as who deletes the most, there is AdminStats for that but those numbers are cumulative so you'd have to do some work to break down this number on a daily, monthly or yearly basis. And there is a fair amount of deletions done by admin bots.
I watch the deletion log and there are quite a few deletions through deletion discussions (AFD, CFD, TFD, etc.) but what many people underestimate is the huge number of image files that are deleted daily because they don't have correct permissions. But I'm getting off on a tangent. You caught my eye by quoting numbers! Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh I was counting from the deletion log, without filtering for anything. Just looking to see if there has been a change recently, which does not appear to be the case. Files add a bit to the counter, and occasional mass deletions add a lot, same as with pages. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the admin activity theory is probably it, as the new page backlog's current trend suggests that we've actually been putting in more work than typical in the last few days. signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your ideas, everyone. Much appreciated. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about redirects created by page moves

Are redirects which are automatically created by page moves marked as unreviewed? If yes, with me being a prolific page mover but not otherwise creating many redirects, would it help if I applied for the redirect patrol whitelist? Lennart97 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are automatically marked as unreviewed. I have come across some of your redirects, I think it definitely be worthwhile if you could be placed on the redirect patrol whitelist. Polyamorph (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll file the request. Lennart97 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
One other thing, I believe that if you have the autopatrolled right, they are not unreviewed. Onel5969 TT me 21:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I figured, but I don't have that one, not much of an article creator :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio mirrors

Greetings.

I was wondering if you all think it might be beneficial if we were to start a list of WP mirrors, which would help us in our copyvio portion of NPP. I have a small list, and add to it as more are uncovered, but other folks might have additional ones I don't know about. FWIW, here are the ones I've found:

Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 21:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

meta:User:EranBot/Copyright/Blacklist is EranBot's URL whitelist, though it's written using regular expressions so it is a little harder to interpret. Sometimes you can tell whether something is copied from Wikipedia based on the structure and/or phrasing of the text — in those cases, I select a short snippet and paste it in the search bar, surrounded by quotation marks, to see if any matches come up. DanCherek (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
In addition to what DanCherek suggest I would also add that searching "wikipedia" in the chrome inspect element also can be useful. And of course there is everybody's favourite, [number] all over the text, with bonus points for an empty references section at the bottom. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Clairification at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help

I was reading Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help and noticed this sentance in the Who can review articles? subsection: "Users will need to have been registered for at least 90 days, have made at least 500 non-reverted or uncontroversial edits to Article space (mainspace) and have a clean block log since 01 January 2016." This doesn't apply to me because I have a clean block log, but the way this is worded leaves me confused about whether this requirement started in January 2016 or whether it means anyone blocked since January 2016 should not be granted the NPP perm. I'm writing this on this page because this where the talk page redirects to. Clovermoss (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: that was added by Kudpung in this diff in October 2016. I'd assume "six months block-free" would be reasonable. This follows Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Guidelines for granting which is the actual guideline on granting - The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the information there according with the actual guideline. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Seyed Yashar Tavakolian

Can I get some more eyes on this one? The AFD doesn't have any votes yet. In retrospect I am getting a COI/UPE vibe. Maybe I should have tried G11 or draftify instead of AFD. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I tagged as G12 just now. My bad for missing that. I'll check for that before AFD next time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, there's a definite copyright violation, and most likely either a UPE or COI issue. If it's speedied due to the CV, then the AfD can be closed procedurally. Onel5969 TT me 23:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Korean biostubs

In early May an editor created a run of dozens of bio stubs of historic Korean royalty. Many of them have been sitting in the queue since then. I have chosen one of the most poorly-sourced examples and sent it to AfD for consensus. If it is kept I intend to review and pass all the other royal consort articles. There’s no point in taking them to AfD individually since the same issues are present in all of them, and sitting in the queue for longer won’t do any good. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, well done. --John B123 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand the intent. My issue is that many of the remaining ones are so poorly sourced that some of them don't even have enough RS to show they meet the notability criteria. Your taking the sample to AfD has resulted in the article being somewhat improved. Most of these have been tagged for improvement for month(s), with no work being done on them. I went through quite a few of them, and removed all unsourced material, and have asked the editor to work on these older articles, rather than continuing to create new, poorly sourced articles, but to date, they have not seen fit to do so. That being said, I would never question either of your judgement in this matter. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
All royal consorts passed now. I’m not convinced they’re all notable and as Onel5969 says the sourcing is pretty dire but we have two AfDs resulting in “Keep” so far on this basis so I’m going to leave it to posterity or determined zealots to take them to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles with poor sourcing

If a subject is an SNG pass, but has poor sourcing (such as only Soccerway, only a national parliament's bio webpage, or a Google Scholar pass but the only citation is the subject's own personal website), how would you handle it? Would you mark as reviewed, draftify, TNT, etc? I've been reviewing a lot of SNG passes for professors and politicians with poor sourcing lately, and I am receiving some conflicting information. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally if someone was a member of a parliament or other legislature and the only source was the official site of that legislature, I'd either pass them or tag it, wait to see if other sources appear, and then pass it a few weeks later if nobody else has. I generally avoid football bios sourced only to Soccerway as I'm less sure about the its reliability, but probably the same logic would hold true there. I realise others may take a firmer line. For other articles it depends. There was a whole swathe of China geostubs that were sourced only to an official database. Several of us pushed them to draft and the creator brought them back into mainspace without improvement. In those cases too where the source is official and we can be sure the article isn't a hoax, I'd pass it. You can't keep draftifying it and there's no point in AfDing it unless you think it's a hoax or a mistake. The real weakness is allowing authors who can't be bothered to source their articles to keep pushing them into mainspace over reasonable policy-based objections, but that's the task we've chosen to take on I guess. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Passing SNG is one thing, sourcing is another. If there are issues with the sourcing then I tag it appropriately. If the article has only one source, such as the soccer stubs, I tag it and if no effort is made to add sources then send it to draft. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Depends on how much time I have or what I feel like doing. I often search for sources myself and try to improve the article accordingly. But if I don't have time for that or am not in the mood for that I would tag it with something like {{more sources}} or {{refimprove}} or something like that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, Try to find better sources, if you can't, consider AfD if you are very sure that it doesn't pass the GNG. This requires a gentle touch, and some personal experience, as some of the categories of AfD (such as Soccer/Football) will dogpile the AfD with "meets SNG" comments, even though the burden should be on the 'keep' !voters to demonstrate meeting the GNG. Only WP:PROF can be used in absence of the GNG (from memory; I've been away for a while), the other SNGs are just a 'indication' of what is 'likely' to be notable.
If you think it probably would be notable, you can either bomb it with a couple more URLs that you've found. Or, if you don't think it worth your time, hit it with the 'more references' tag, mark it as reviewed, and move on. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 02:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far. So if something is an SNG pass, to avoid draftification, what is the minimum sourcing required? What # of sources? What quality of sources? Do they have to be GNG quality sources? This kind of thing is not in the flowchart or on WP:NPP from what I recall. Those two pages give the impression that notability is king. Draftification of SNG pass articles with poor sourcing appears to be something undocumented that many reviewers do (I've heard it in various places from 4 people now). –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, there is a rule of the thumb which some go by: WP:THREE, at least to minimally survive a AfD, and also at AfC, some of us would decline submission due to poor sourcing, also based on the WP:THREE. – robertsky (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Robertsky, isn't WP:THREE another way of saying WP:GNG? Surely articles that pass an SNG do not need to have the citations to pass GNG in order to be marked as reviewed? I dunno if it's just a mental block on my part or what, but I still feel very confused about this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: Articles that pass SNG still need adequate referencing to pass WP:VERIFY, otherwise you could establish SNG in the first sentence and then write whatever you wanted for the rest of the article. Whilst WP:THREE is often looked at as the minimum, the number of references is less important than the references verifying all the content. The quality of the references is also important, I tend to ignore blogs, social media etc when looking at the sources. Going back to your original post, bios on university sites are often written by the subject, or from information supplied by the subject, so are not the best of sources. --John B123 (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
John B123, I mean... two is the minimum; by a strict reading of the GNG, two is multiple. To rely on two, they do have to be really good though in my experience. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 02:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the quality of the sources is important, although certain niche fans would argue about it (and quite successfully at AfD, I might add, when they get other fans to chime in). For instance, an article on a music group with in-depth articles in the NYT and Rolling Stone, while two blurb reviews from Allmusic and Punknews don't hold nearly the same weight, imho. Onel5969 TT me 04:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose I have a slightly different opinion about these things. For me, I wish we could consistently get deleted obvious UPE/COI articles even if they look notable. For good faith contributions in the thick of deletionism/inclusionism debates though, I think we should act as gatekeepers, not quality police. That is what appears to be our mandate from what I've gathered so far. So, if an article meets an SNG, I would mark is as reviewed. It's up to the community at large to take care of whether it does not deserve a standalone article, whether it should be merged elsewhere. If it does not want us passing those articles, it should remove those SNGs. There is no community mandate for darftifying articles that already demonstrate through reliable sources that they are presumably notable. There may be room for maneuver in borderline cases. For example, a professional club footballer who has only played one or two matches meets NFOOTY but may get deleted at AFD depending on the participants, so you could defensibly draftify it if you wanted, demanding that community norm demands it meet GNG, but I would not do that for a player that's played many club games or has played an international match. There really is no community mandate for draftifying articles on notable topics just because they are poor; NPP instructions say to tag them even if they are completely unsourced as long as they are notable, and mark reviewed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Usedtobecool, good points for sure. I agree that it usually isn't worth banging your head against the wall at AfD trying to die on the SNG vs GNG hill. In the most egregious examples, where a search turns up nothing, I'll do it, but yeah, it's a tough one. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 03:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    Insertcleverphrasehere - unfortunately, I tend to bang my head up against that wall. At AfD, a frequently cited principle is WP:NOTCLEANUP, while I subscribe to Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup, particularly the thought mentioned in the opening sentence, “the threat of deletion often results in some amount of cleanup being done to the article.”. I don't have a stellar % at AfD in my nominations, because often I am forced in the choice between allowing crap to exist, or taking it to AfC to either have it removed or improved. But I agree with Usedtobecool's methodology. From a NPP perspective, I think it also depends on how long the article has been in the queue. If there's an article, with even a single ref, and that ref substantiates the SNG claim (e.g. they pass NFOOTY, or they pass NPOL, etc.) However, if the sourcing is dubious, or unreliable, and yet notability is possible, then it should be draftified. Also, if there's an article which probably meets notability, but most of the article is unreferenced, and it has been tagged for weeks/months with more refs needed, then the choices should be to scrub the article of uncited material, or move it into draft to allow the article creator to add the sources necessary to pass WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 TT me 04:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    There really is no community mandate for draftifying articles on notable topics just because they are poor; NPP instructions say to tag them even if they are completely unsourced as long as they are notable, and mark reviewed. That's certainly not my understanding of WP:NPPDRAFT, if anything the opposite is true, articles should only be draftified if they are potentially notable. --John B123 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    John B123, mine too. If there isn't any indication of notability, than one of the deletion routes is the way to go. Onel5969 TT me 22:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Stubification

I have a suggestion to add to our tutorial regarding the process of stubification. I'm sure that you have all seen examples where this would apply. We might need to get a consensus over on the COI noticeboard before going through with a general recommendation for action to NPPs, but at this stage it is just to discuss and figure out if this is a worthwhile and/or feasible proposal. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Stubify notable but promotional articles

Articles written by editors with a conflict of interest often have severe issues. It may be heavily biased, full of original research, self-published or primary sources, press releases used in place of reliable sources, or contain so much promotional material that little else remains. If the article is exclusively promotional, it should be tagged for deletion per the G11 speedy deletion criteria.

In many cases it is clear that the topic is notable, but significant effort would be required to clean up the article; either to sort through a multitude of poor or inappropriate references for the few useful ones, because the writing in the article is so biased that it would need to be copy-edited line by line throughout the article, or else because reliable sources are used but the text they are referencing is not neutral in summarising the content of those sources. The effort required in these cases can be daunting, and in these cases it is often better to start over from scratch.

For new articles that are promotional or otherwise problematic (as described above), and where it is clear that the author has a significant conflict of interest and/or has engaged in paid editing, the following steps are recommended:

  • Remove the content of the article and replace it with two or more neutral sentences describing the subject. If these can be salvaged from the existing content, that can be done, but rewriting from scratch is preferable.
  • Add two or more reliable sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it with significant coverage. These can be salvaged from the article, but be sure to check them thoroughly if so. Add a references section and {{reflist}} template, or retain that section if already present.
  • An infobox may be retained if the content within it is neutral, though it may be paired down to the essentials.
  • Add a stub tag to the article.
  • Notify the author of the article of the COI editing guideline and tell them that you have reverted the article to a neutral stub.
  • If the author reverts your change, report the article at the conflict of interest noticeboard so that other editors can chose between the two versions of the article.

Discussion

Let me know what you guys/gals think. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle, but the issue would be in monitoring the article after marking it "reviewed". I also think that the sourcing needs to be enough to pass WP:VERIFY. While this is not a bad course of action on an individual basis, this could add quite a bit of work to reviewers in the aggregate (particularly the second bullet). Onel5969 TT me 04:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds a viable way of sorting out these problem articles, but I think it's beyond the remit of NPP. The queue is growing daily, for reviewers to have to spend a considerable time on a single article will only exacerbate the situation. --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I too wonder just how much stubifying is an NPP responsibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympic Stubs

What's the consensus on all the Olympic articles coming up daily with just two sentences, "The person is so and so. He/She competed in so and so at the 2020 Summer Olympics"? These articles usually have no secondary sources, still, most of them are reviewed without any tags. What do you all think about this? What can be the right way to approach it? - The9Man (Talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Every single one will have a reliable source in the official Olympics website, which will verify nationality, sport, birth date, Olympic participation: might it be simplest just to find and add that ref and move on, given that Olympic participation gives a free pass for notability? Just a thought. PamD 19:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@The9Man, in addition to what has been correctly put together by PamD, I presume you have a particular editor in mind, but from what I can see, I may be wrong, I see their articles largely meet WP:PSA. Celestina007 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There were recent discussions at ANI and BLP Noticeboard about one editor's mass creation of Olympic stubs. As far as I can see they pass WP:NOLY and the (minimal) information in the article is verified by the sourses.
Of greater concern is another editor who has been for months creating stubs for otherwise non-notable athletes when their name has been added to a country's Olympic competitors list. --John B123 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
John B123 I generally don't have any issue with these creations since it is passing notability under WP:NOLY. My concern is what is the right action to do with these. PamD, Celestina007, So what you people suggest is to check with the Olympics database and mark it as reviewed and move on?
There are 11k+ athletes in this Olympics so WP:NPR will be flooding with more of these. - The9Man (Talk) 08:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@The9Man: No, I wasn't suggesting just "check with the Olympics database", but "check with the Olympics database and quickly add that record as an uncontroversial reliable source" before accepting and moving on. I'm not a regular NPP reviewer, I must admit, but it seems the least-total-effort way to handle unsourced Olympians: improve the article by adding that one easily-found source (either as a ref for the lead sentence, or as an External link "Olympics 2020 profile"). PamD 09:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Adding an extra ref to potentially 11K articles would be a mammoth task. Grabbing one at random, Meriem Mebarki, which is typical of these articles, the sourcing looks fine to me as it is. --John B123 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how many of these I've reviewed in the last two weeks, certainly over 100. Saw no issues regarding sourcing on any of them. I think PamD is only saying if there is no sourcing which shows notability. And I don't know what percentage of that 11k this would relate to. Usually folks who create these stubs (and I did my fair share when I was working on the redlink project), provide enough reliable sources to pass NOLYMPICS. Onel5969 TT me 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The OP didn't give any examples: I misunderstood their "no secondary sources" if this is typical. What's the problem (apart from WP:NOLY)? PamD 16:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Mass creation is, in some instances, disruptive behavior so there might be something to that. But from an NPP perspective these are very easy ones to patrol - verify that the person named has a source (even a primary one) verifying their achievement, tag as appropriate, and move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I have been reviewing and cleaning up every new Olympian stub for a few weeks now, with the help of some other NPP regulars. Most of them don't include a birthplace so I add the birthplace with a ref to the athlete's official Olympics bio along with the appropriate categories that are missing. I wish I could do more to each article but I prefer getting to each one and cleaning up the basics rather than fleshing out just a handful. I just wish editors would focus on quality > quantity, but I guess that's a different conversation. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The unsourced template for articles with general references

As its documentation makes clear, Template:unsourced is used only for articles that don't have any sources at all. One editor – who I believe is among the most prolific NPP patrollers – insists, on the other hand, that an article counts as unsourced if it doesn't have inline citations, no matter how big its bibliography of general references may otherwise be. I've reached out to them, but this doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Could someone please help clarify the point? – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that the most accurate template should be used. In the case of general refs without inline citations, that would be {{no footnotes}}. MB 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious too, but John B123 (sorry I forgot to ping before) is of a different opinion: User talk:John B123#Where the sources are. – Uanfala (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
FFS I tagged an article with {{no references}} instead of {{no footnotes}} six months ago because it wasn't clear that the "Literature" section was actually a general references section. The conversation was about whether an article needed inline citations or not, nowhere in that conversation did I say that an article with general references should be tagged as {{unsourced}}. It amazes me that you feel the need to tell somebody they did something trivial wrong six months later. If it troubles you that badly please take it to ANI --John B123 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I thought that pointing out a basic error would be enough and you'd get the point. And after you apparently didn't, I looked for the relevant automated summary in your recent contributions, and out of the 15 or so hits, I saw two similar uses of the unreferenced template that were from yesterday [15] [16]. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you or if what you actually meant on your talk page is different from I thought you'd said. – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to plead the fifth on this one, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia that is. Whether an article with no references but an external links section should be tagged {{no references}} or {{no footnotes}} is, on the overall scale of things, a trivial semantics issue. I've actually got more constructive things to do with my time than argue about it. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)--John B123 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

More help needed

The issue persists. I've checked a few of John B123's uses of the "unreferenced" tag from the last day, and almost all of them appear to be on articles that do have references (usually ones listed in an "External links" section – like this one). I brought it up at John 123's talk page again, but that doesn't seem to have much of an effect. John 123 is of the opinion he's entitled to ignore the rules, and that when I raise the issue that's harassment.

Could someone uninvolved please have a look? If a prolific patroller persistently uses the incorrect maintenance tags, then this is a problem. And if this usage is not in fact incorrect, then we'd need to start thinking about updating the template documentation and possibly the guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING, posting both here and on my talk page within minutes isn't the way to get your own way. --John B123 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Edit to add you have yet again distorted what has been said on my talk page. --John B123 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
In response to your comments on my talk page [17]:
  • On a page where there is a link in "External links" but no references section, the use of {{no footnotes}} gives no idea to the editor that placing refs in external links is incorrect, whereas there's a chance they will think "I've put the reference in the wrong place" with {{unreferenced}}
  • it pollutes the maintenance categories - Both templates put the article in maintenance categories. In the case of an article with one ink in external links, adding {{no footnotes}} and {{More citations needed}} would in fact put it more maintenance categories than {{unreferenced}}
  • that may need serious attention - Are you seriously suggesting the articles you linked to [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and [23] don't need need serious attention?
  • it sends the wrong message to new users in the case of [24] which has one link to IMDb would a better message be sent with {{no footnotes}}, {{More citations needed}} and {{unreliable sources}}?
--John B123 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I mostly agree with John here, deciding whether an external link is a valid source is splitting hairs here, it definitely needs to be tagged (either with no footnotes or with unrefrenced, or possible in the case of an external link to a profile then primary/third-party/single-source). Unsourced should not be used for an article that has a references section (or something resembling it), but whether an external link is a source for {{unreferenced}} is not explicitly stated in the template (though is regarded as a source in Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people). Even if John is wrong, this is a minor inaccuracy on the specific tag(s) here.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The documentation of {{unreferenced}} explicitly warns:

Watch out for lists of general references that someone has incorrectly listed under ==External links==. If the link leads to a reliable source that supports some article content, then that website is a reference, not an external link.

Yes, this is splitting hairs either way. If an article has a reference hiding under an "External links" section then I wouldn't bother about that at all. To the extent that someone decides to do something about that, then I think the right solution is not to slap on a big message at the top complaining about the article not having any sources, but to simply edit the reference into whatever format is deemed necessary. – Uanfala (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Curation toolbox design

Not sure where the best place to ask this is but I wonder if there’s any chance of a small redesign on the curation toolbox? At the moment the green button for “add selected tags” sits right under the “mark as reviewed” tick box. I do all my reviewing on iPad and the two are so close together that I frequently hit the tick box by accident and then gave to go back and unreview. There is plenty of room at the bottom of the box to allow the green button to be moved to the right so it sits much further away from the tick box. Would this help anyone else or is it just me? Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have that problem as I only edit from a desktop, but no objection to changing it if it helps you. --John B123 (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Same as John B123, only using laptop but no objection to change JW 1961 Talk 14:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Yup, same as above. Only use laptop, so this isn't an issue for me, but no opposition to changing the layout. Onel5969 TT me 14:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearing the date filter

Is there a way to clear the date filter setting on the new pages feed? I've tried removing the script from my common.js page and re-adding it to refresh the input dates on the filter, but they remained input. I'm not trying to change the input date, but rather clear it so that everyday the newest created pages will show first instead of ones from the previous day that I skipped on reviewing to let more experienced reviewers handle in fear of me missing something or adding incorrect tags. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 21:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If you click on the date box it should highlight the day. Press delete and the day will change to 'dd'. Click on the month in the box and press delete and it will change to 'mm'. Finally click on the year and then press delete. The date box should now show 'dd/mm/yyyy'. If both 'From' and 'To' boxes are set to this then all unreviewed articles will be shown. --John B123 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much! WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 23:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

How long does it take to review a new page please?

I submitted a page on 15th August and it still has not been reviewed. Most of my pages have been reviewed within 24 hours and I am wondering why it is taking so long. Can anybody tell me please what the average time is for a page to be reviewed? Will the page eventually be reviewed? Amirah talk 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Others can chime in. But I think a couple months is normal, although "easy" pages may get reviewed faster by front-of-queue reviewers. There is a backlog of around 5,000 pages that need reviewing, and that slows things down. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The only page you have created recently that hasn't been reviewed is Cyrus Ahanchian, which has been nominated for deletion.--John B123 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability of circuit court cases

Is there a notability guideline about United States courts of appeals cases that don't make it to the Supreme Court? I assume these cases need to meet GNG, and I'm curious if AfD'ing articles sourced only to basic summary sites like caselaw.findlaw.com would attract opposition. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, hi. I do not believe their is a specific SNG regarding these cases, so GNG would apply. Onel5969 TT me 01:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
There was a failed attempt to reach a consensus on notability for legal topics, including cases, at WP:NLAW. I think there have been multiple attempts to come to a written guideline, but it seems never to have successfully coalesced. TJRC (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Monthly covid pages

There are several articles which have been created which are very well done table articles, however, there is only a single ref, which doesn't actually meet WP:VERIFY. Here's one of them: COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021. Thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 15:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I did tag a few of these articles hoping the creator would add some more refs, but that doesn't seem likely as they are now creating them with a {{more citations needed}} tag.Not sure what could be done about it though. --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
John B123, well, since they are ignoring the ref tags, they should be draftified. And then they shouldn't be moved back until proper sourcing is provided as per WP:BURDEN. Onel5969 TT me 01:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Sounds a plan. --John B123 (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

there is difference between news sensationalism, and notability. The topic of the month articles is not notable. Like onel5969 said above, we should draftify such articles. I'm pretty sure no one will give significant coverage to the deaths of June in August, and thus these articles will never pass notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Anguswalker#COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021 moved to draftspace. Onel5969 TT me 11:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it's going to have to go to AfD. I don't have time at the moment but will do it later today. --John B123 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic deaths in July 2021 --John B123 (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: per WP:DRAFTIFY, if a topic is not plausibly notable it shouldn't be sent to draft. --John B123 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
yeah, AfD is the best course of action. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Feed broken?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T289825

It looks like the feed is broken for at least me and Girth Summit. Can anyone else confirm before I file the phab ticket knowing that WP:ITSTHURSDAY? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Confirming that it's dead for me. I get the basic page, but where the list of articles should be, I just get 'Please wait...'. None of the links/buttons work on the rest of the page - it's like it got half-way through loading then froze up. Girth Summit (blether) 23:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
It's working ok for me. --John B123 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
John B123, do you have it set to sort by oldest, or by newest? (Suggestion: if you have it showing by 'oldest', and it's working, don't change it to 'newest'.) Girth Summit (blether) 23:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit On looking closer, I've got about 30 articles in the list and that's it. The bottom bar (with the number of pages patrolled in the last week etc) is missing. I have it set to newest. Changing that to oldest or trying to filter the results does nothing. --John B123 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
John B123, you're getting more than I am - I get zero articles, and can't change the 'sort by' drop-down, or click on any links at all. I'm on Windows 10 using Edge as a browser, if that's helpful to anyone. Off to bed, nighty-night. Girth Summit (blether) 23:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
My UI looks normal and everything seems to be working fine, but I also have it set to the non-standard settings of Oldest/Redirects-only. signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it was some sort of issue with Chrome/Firefox which Lego has fixed. If you have issues make sure to WP:BYPASS your cache to get the update to load. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be okay now. Just reloaded, switched from oldest first to newest first, seem to be getting a complete list (5k+). Onel5969 TT me 01:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wishlist time?

I am appreciative of how fast this error was fixed. However, I worry that this kind of error reflects that the code for the curation toolbar and NPP more generally is written in a way that is hard for programmers to support and hard to test. Further, this limits NPP to only being used on enwiki which makes it even harder to test. This is what we discovered when we last were able to get some developer time. I am wondering if it isn't time to once again make an effort to get developer time in order to modernize Page Curation. For more see this discussion which occurred at the end of the last round of development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Fully agree that the extension needs some love from developers - I'll try to find some time to review the existing code and start cleaning it up, to make it easier to work with. DannyS712 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Is there a procedure to request a user's autopatrolled rights be revoked. See [25] - mass-creator of often one line stubs. --John B123 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd probably post to WP:ANI after discussing with the user. Asking the admin who granted them the perm would also be reasonable. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
User:John B123: I was just working a little bit on Recent Deaths. Too busy in real life to write more right now, but over the years I've created many long articles. I think the best option may be for you to expand the articles, or possibly AFD them?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: You're missing the point. As an autopatrolled editor you should be creating articles that meet the minimum requirements. --John B123 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I apologize and I will do my best in future. I expanded the articles a little now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Any New Page Patroller please review the page.

I created an Article Rishton Ka Manjha an Tv show. Which is not indexing on google. Any New Page Patroller can review my page? খানকির চালে (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi খানকির চালে, there are currently around 5,000 articles awaiting review, I'm sure somebody will get to your article from yesterday in due course. I'm afraid Google is beyond our control. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: pages aren't indexed until they are approved at NPP, so it kinda is in our control. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi,Elli it is glad to know that this particular thing is under your control. Can you check and get the article Rishton Ka Manjha approved by NPP খানকির চালে (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-gallery-notice-NPF

Template:Db-gallery-notice-NPF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot for automatically patrolling RfD'd pages

If you've ever looked at Special:NewPagesFeed's "nominated for deletion" queue, you've probably noticed that all RfD'd redirects are listed there. As far as MediaWiki is concerned, when they are tagged they become articles, and thus they're "new pages" even if the redirect is 15 years old. This is a bit silly, IMO, since there's almost never anything for a new page reviewer to do with them.

A change is pending to Twinkle to automatically patrol RfD'd pages if the tagger is an NPR or sysop, but otherwise we're left with this influx of "new articles" that are neither new nor articles. So I've coded a bot, User:'zinbot (GitHub), that can patrol such cases automatically. There's only two things I can think of for NPRs to check in these cases:

  1. Incorrect usage of the template.
    'zinbot ignores RfD'd pages that don't match the exact format you'd find when substituting {{rfd}}.
  2. Failure to file an RfD (although I'm not sure how many people actually check for this).
    'zinbot checks the RfD page for the specified day and looks for the corresponding {{subst:rfd2}}. It keeps a userspace log of pages that are tagged but not filed within 30 minutes.

What do others think? If people agree that it would be a good idea, I can go ahead and file a WP:BRFA. If there are concerns that this could somehow obscure problem editors, I can set the bot to only patrol if the RfD was filed by an extendedconfirmed user or sysop, but personally I don't think that's necessary.

Courtesy pings to Onel5969 and Polyamorph, whom I most frequently see patrolling these pages. Feel free to ping anyone else who patrols this queue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never really been bothered by this myself - but I guess it's potentially useful. I'd be a bit concerned about abuse, but that does admittedly seem like a niche and easily discovered vector (given the redirect had to already exist). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Like Elli, it doesn't really bug me. If the bot auto marks them as reviewed, that would probably work. If they aren't valid RfD's, that will be pointed out on the RfD page. I can't remember the last time I did not mark one of these as "reviewed". Usually it's redirects which are simply blanked which are the issue. Onel5969 TT me 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. Polyamorph (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Archive_39&oldid=1145233020"