Misplaced Pages

talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:02, 22 September 2017 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 13, Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 14) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:30, 22 January 2025 edit undoAtlantic306 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers154,425 edits →Checking for fictitious references: ce 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Page tabs}} {{Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Header}}
{{Notice|This page is for '''New Page Reviewers''' to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers.<br/>Discussion also takes place on IRC at {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}}<hr/>For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.}}

<div class="notice" style="background:#def; border:1px solid #468; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; background-color:#ffffcc;" align="left">] '''Tip''': When you see a page that appears to be obviously a ], take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{tl|salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator ]. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per ]. For more information please see ] and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.
</div>
{{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes|style=background-color:lightBlue; border:1px solid black;|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=21}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(21d) | algo=old(30d)
| archive=Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=14 | counter=52
| maxarchivesize=75K | maxarchivesize=200K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5 | minthreadsleft=20
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}} }}
{{skip to top and bottom}}
{{Archive box
|auto=yes
|search=yes
|<br /><div style{{=}}"text-align:center;">''']:'''<br />
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]</div>
<br /><div style{{=}}"text-align:center;">''']:'''<br />
], ], ], ], ]</div>
<br /><div style{{=}}"text-align:center;">''']:'''<br />
]</div>}}


== Autopatrol ==
== What about NPP review of (nearly blank) pages or pages with empty skeletons? ==
{{Tracked|T374300}}
Hi all. Just created a new entry for the first time in a little while at ]. I’m autopatrolled as well as being a reviewer so I was surprised to see that the page looks unreviewed. Is that a change in process that I’ve overlooked or might there be some technical hiccup I should attend to? Of course always happy to have more eyes on new work, just wondered what was up and if I had missed anything important. Thank you for any insight! ] (]) 07:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:Seems like this might be a PageTriage bug. I've filed ]. Thanks for reporting. –] <small>(])</small> 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::Ah super, thank you for filing that! ] (]) 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::: I don't know if this is related. Previously if a redirect was changed to an article that was so poor I reverted to the redirect I had to mark the redirect as patrolled manually. Starting a few weeks ago the redirects have been automatically marked as patrolled because I'm autopatrolled. --] (]) 09:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for mentioning. That sounds like good behavior. If one has autopatrol, one's redirects should probably not be being marked as unreviewed. Do you agree with that line of thinking? –] <small>(])</small> 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: Agree that redirects should not be marked as unreviewed if you are autopatrolled. Presumably there were changes to the PageTriage script recently so redirects are marked at reviewed if you are autopatrolled. I wondered if these changes caused the problem outlined by Innisfree987? --] (]) 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes I was thinking just the same—sounds like a definite improvement but maybe the tinkering switched off something else. ] (]) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
* no, I wouldn't say so. Some autopatrolled users wouldn't be good with r cat shells, and similar redirect stuff. I think these two should be exclusive, or maybe we need to consult the folks who patrol redirects. They are well suited to answer this. —usernamekiran ] 11:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)


===Another draft that didn't get autopatrolled===
I've been patrolling the older end of the User: namespace (10 to 30 days old, usually). One thing I run across frequently are pages that are essentially blank (may have a sandbox template or something similar) or that have just the Article Wizard skeleton of an article. So far, I've been passing these by without marking them as patrolled.
Hello ], @], I also faced the same issue today. I got to know about the ticket late. Sadly, my article was moved back to the draftspace ]. Still, if it could be of any help as reference please expedite the ticket. Thanks for your consideration ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|C1K98V}} you know you can just move the article back, right? ] (] &#124; ]) 16:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::@], A reviewer has moved the article to draftspace with a relevant notability policy. I don't share the same opinion and S/He don't agree with me. It's totally fine, I respect their decision assuming good faith. But, I would like to get the article restored back to mainspace through the ] route. Thanks ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: Deletion review is not the appropriate avenue to contest a draftification. If you object to a draftification you move the page back to main space. Editors are welcome to disagree but if you believe it meets then the guidelines that we have in place then just move it. ] (]) 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::@], You sure that it won't look like I'm abusing my autopatrolled rights. Also, I believe admins have many important tasks to deal with so I don't want to add another AFD. Also, it will appear as a recreated article in the page curation and xtools which I don't want. Hope, you both are getting me. Thanks for your consideration. ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 17:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@]: You've had two different admins tell you it's okay. Draft space is entirely optional and, if you're concerned about the article being marked as reviewed, simply mark it as unreviewed. As for xtools, there's no way of changing that, the redirect left behind will always show that and you have to accept it. Good thing is it's mostly meaningless since people have their redirects overwritten or G6 deleted all the time. ] (]) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I appreciate and accept your opinion and will happily move the article back to mainspace. But I have seen the scenario where an article which was deleted (move to draft cases) and you don't want it to look like recreated or deleted in page curation/xtools. You can seek restoration of the article through UDEL and the above said tag will be eliminated automatically. Thanks ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: On a side note, I have to agree with the original reviewer that the article doesn't meet ] or ]. --] (]) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], I disagree with you as well. I believe it satisfy both the ] or ]. Thanks ] <sup>(] ] ])</sup> 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|C1K98V}} How is the production of the film notable to meet ]? Which sources do you think give ] to pass ]? As far as I can see there is only routine coverage based on press releases, social media posts and quotes from those involved in the film. ] (]) 07:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{outdent|7}} It might be time to move that conversation to the article talk page or AfD, this is not the right place to discuss the notability of individual articles. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)


== Do NPPs need to check an article's history? ==
Some of these pages are eligible for speedy after a year of inactivity by their creator (e.g. {{tl|db-blankdraft}}), but that's never true of the pages I'm looking at.


When reviewing a mainspace article, do NPPs need to check an article's history tab? It's not in any of our flowcharts, but it's at ]. Context: –] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Since they're not breaking any rules with their current lack of content, should I mark them as patrolled? Or does that put undue responsibility on Recent Changes Patrol to catch things that are later added to these pages? It strikes me that leaving them hanging around in the NP feed might just waste more time for other NPP reviewers. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 08:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


:More context- the original changes came shortly after a . The incident has been taken care of very thoroughly, but I think the background is helpful to explain ''why'' Novem Linguae made the change, and to clarify that the change was not made without discussion. ] (]) 21:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:Hello ] -- I see the same pattern. First, determine whether you are dealing with a newbie or a WP:SPA. That's occasionally difficult. The experienced editor lodges a trivial two-sentence article. You put a PROD on it and the response is PROD removal and, "Can't you see this is a work in progress? References will follow." My response is this: "Every version of an article in the mainspace should stand on its own, even if it is short."
:I think it's good practice to have a look at the article history, especially if from the back of the queue as there may be move/redirect warring activity going on there ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think checking the history is important. I'm not sure it makes sense in a flowchart, since I think Joe is right about it being part of many different stages, but it should be part of any kind of checklist, I think. -- ] (]) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:I normally check if something is off or if the article is missing references or claims of notability. If I see a bunch of edits, or large chunks of material added or removed then I'll dig a little deeper. As @] said also if it's an older article I'll check it as well. ''']''' ] 00:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:Checking page histories is useful for spotting a wide range of problems and is quick (most new articles have one page histories). For that reason I think it's good advice to make it part of your basic NPP workflow. It's not about what reviewers "need" or are "required" to do. Practically nothing on this page is mandatory in the sense that it should always be done on every page (this also goes for the section below about sourcing). &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 04:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


== FYI: Keyword searching coming to NewPagesFeed ==
:Case study: user Avery333 published this short article a month ago ]. It's dodgy. The text claims his company was formed July 2017, yet the wayback machine has stuff from before. Then he publishes an autobiography (my instinct says so) ]. It's brief with scant references, in short, not notable. And, of course, it depends on ]. I PRODded it. He reverts the prod, adding one reference. Eventually, this will all come crashing down, but having survived NPP Review and a PROD, he'll be emboldened and won't won't go down without a fight.


Hi y'all, just wanted to give a heads up that starting next ], ] will get the ability to search through page snippets (thanks to work done by @] as part of ]). The feature is currently deployed , thoughts and feedback are welcomed. ] (]) 01:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:Do the right thing and nip the bad ones in the bud. If they are brief, you haven't wasted an author's time. If you let the article grow to 10K characters, then rejection is a disservice. "Justice delayed is justice denied." ] (]) 09:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


:@] This sounds helpful. Thank you also @]. ] (]) 13:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Thanks {{u|Rhadow}} for the response. That sounds okay for mainspace review, but the articles in userspace I'm talking about have zero content. Users are allowed to have test pages, partially built content, and a lot of other things on their userspace pages without breaking any rules and, most of the time, I just mark that as patrolled. I catch plenty of would-be autobiographies (for which there's a talk-page template), a few baldly promotional user pages (many of which can be speedied with a combination of U5, G11), and a fair bit of junk that I still don't have a standard response for.
:I can't even express how exciting this is to me. I've been using MPGuy's external NPP browser (toolforge) for key word searches for a while now. I typically point to ] when recruiting recruiting and encouraging folks to give NPP a shot, telling them to work where they're familiar with first, so this is an extra feature that will make it much easier to dive in! ] (]) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


== Redirect backlog is very low and getting lower. ==
:: So I'm still asking, what do other reviewers think is the right thing to do for blank or empty skeleton pages in userspace? ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 09:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


. But any idea why? ] (] — ]) 21:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*Userspace pages are not listed in the New Pages Feed and unless they have particularly toxic content, we generally leave them alone. Due to the huge and sudden unexplained backlog since mid 2016, the effort is to patrol new pages with special/additional focus on the hallmarks of paid editing and other advertorial masquesrading as articles. If you PROD an article, check your PROD or patrol log a few days later to see if the PROD has been removed. If it has, without sufficiently addressing the issue(s), and you are fairly sure it should still be deleted, the next step is to send it to AfD.
:That said, with ACTRIAL starting in just 4 days, we are likely to see a significant drop in the creation of dubious pages. We hope so anyway. ] (]) 09:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
::If they ''index'' their user page this gives them an instant route to Google. We have no policy against it, and we may see an ''increase'' in these cases with ACTRIAL. We'll soon know ()] ] 13:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
:::They can't, because user pages still need to be patrolled by a Reviewer before they can be indexed. And fortunately because they don't appear in a feed, nobody bothers to patrol them. ] (]) 14:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
: A couple of observations:
**If you click on Set filters in the New pages feed, you can select In namespace: Article/User and that will show you a list of userpages. Those are in fact being reviewed by some reviewers. One of the most recent ones is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User:Walnutwhippet/sandbox&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=0&hide_patrol_log=0&hide_tag_log=0&hide_review_log=0
** the NOINDEX flag is (or should be) set automatically for any user page, by transcluding the {{t|NOINDEX}} template. The HTML that the search engine sees includes this line: <pre><meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/></pre>. ] (]) 15:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{U|Mduvekot}} Certainly userspace is ], but this no-indexing is easily overridden and Visual Editor offers this option on a plate. And {{U|Kudpung}}, when users do this their userpage ''does'' get on to Google search results: Google, if you will, "Gayboy Jürgen" or "Camille G. Weston", and these userpages do not appear to have been patrolled. If there are not more such cases it is because I have removed ''hundreds'' of them over the past few months, but would prefer not to have to bother] ] 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


:@] and I went hard at it during the backlog drive, and we've both continued to do so. We also had a significant amount of help from @]. ] (]) 13:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Yes, {{u|Drewmutt}} put me onto patrolling userspace new pages. I don't think many people are reviewing these. I do some patrolling in mainspace as well, but many of the pages there fall in to a grey area where I'm not yet confident I know whether "tag and release" is appropriate, but don't seem to be CSD candidates, either.
::Indeed: between the three of you and Dr vulpes, ], which is great work. ] (] — ]) 21:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Shame on me for not giving Vulpes any credit! ] (]) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:I made a small push and managed to get it down to zero, at least for the moment. ] ‹ ] — ] › 15:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


== NPP school teachers needed ==
::: My understanding is that userspace pages are not indexed unless the user requests it explicitly. None of the pages I've run across so far have included that request and I might well look at the page more carefully if it did.


Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for ]? {{u|DreamRimmer}} recently filled all 3 of their slots, so we want to make sure we still have capacity for additional students. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. –] <small>(])</small> 17:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Occasionally, a user sandbox is a draft submitted at AfC. If they seem ready, I move them to Draft: but most of the time, they're not ready - like the one linked above - so I leave them as sandboxes and generally leave an AfC comment about what needs to be improved.


:Also @] and @], are you still active NPP school trainers, and is the "student slots available" column at ] up to date? –] <small>(])</small> 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::: If {{u|Kudpung}} would prefer that I not bother with userspace and stick to mainspace, I'll defer to their judgment. But if I'm to continue to patrol userspace, I'd like a reading on whether essentially blank pages and empty skeletons should be marked as patrolled. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 20:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
::I am still happy to take students, however all the statistics are probably quite outdated so I'll update them now :) ] &#124; ] &#124; ] (they/them) 07:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


:{{ping|Novem Linguae|Zippybonzo}}, I always have slot available and have been active since day one as I am the one who set up the program. Stay safe and best.] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">]</span> 00:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There is one area where it's worth checking user sub pages: Users who are operating scams by creating pages about living people then demanding money to publish them. It's not very common, but it does happen. ] (]) 00:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Although it is interesting to note that in such cases, creating the article in userspace has de facto added that text to commons already. Instead of paying, those people could simply register an account and move it to articlespace themselves and there is nothing the scammer could do about it. :) — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 01:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} I didn't expect this to be such a hard question!


== ] has an ]==
With respect to userspace pages that are essentially blank or empty article wizard skeletons, is there some reason not to mark them as "reviewed" with the NPP tool? If I can't get a straight answer to this question, I'll start doing this so they stop cluttering up the queue of unreviewed pages in userspace. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 04:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, if they're blank they don't have any harmful content, so what's he problem with simply clicking the 'patrol' link? ] (]) 08:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Thanks. Will do. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
:::If I understand rightly if we do mark them as reviewed and they are then moved into the main article space by any user including the creator then they will not pop up in the new pages feed and could be referenced without being reviewed. ] (]) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{U|Domdeparis}}, you understood wrongly. Unless the Foundation has got it wrong again with their coding of the Mediawiki software, ''all'' pages that are created in, or moved to mainspace are listed in the feed. If you are concerned, consider running an experiment with a user sub page you create yourself for the purpose and see what happens. ] (]) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I just tested this with the help of {{u|Drewmutt}}. A page he marked as reviewed as a user subpage of mine was marked as unreviewed when it was moved to article space. This works as intended. ] (]) 00:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Thank you, {{u|TonyBallioni}} and thank you, {{u|Drewmutt}}. I hope this clears up some issues. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 02:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Ok perfect so if we come across a sandbox that has been marked as reviewed then no need to unreview it but no point in reviewing it either in the first place as the reviewing disappears as soon as it is moved to the main space and it will come up in the feed. Thanks for the info. ] (]) 06:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


:{{courtesy link|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?}}{{mhair}}] (]) 02:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
== Article review flowchart for the tutorial page ==


== Add ] to ]? ==
]
Hi guys (and gals). I'm not the first person to notice that the majority of new page patrolling is done by a very small group of people. The main issue I see is that many of the articles that end up stuck in the backlog are the articles that are "]" that only experienced reviewers bother tackling. In order to help alleviate this issue, I've been working on a flowchart that is intended to facilitate any user with the basics of new page patrolling to review ''any new article'' to a degree of reasonable accuracy.


I moved ] to mainspace in June, the DYK nom for it was passed that same month, it appeared on the main page in July, and yet it wasn't patrolled until November. Since DYK requires more scrutiny than AfC, which is already on NPPEASY, I think passed DYK reviews should appear on that page. Any way to implement that? ] 15:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This workflow is based on the 'tutorial' NPP page, as well as the CSD criteria page, with a healthy dose of my own personal 'judgment' when it comes to patrolling new pages. I am not a good proofreader, so please point out any errors I have made so that I can correct them. This flowchart is very much a work-in-progress, so please point out any process that I've set up that you disagree with, or any oversights that I might have missed.


:Courtesy ping @]. These should be tracked properly in ], I'm just not sure when that CAT is implemented, if it's once nominated, approved, or posted. ] (]) 18:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
If you guys could try out the flowchart by using it a few times when reviewing some pages, that would help the most with ironing out the bugs.
::The category ] is added by ] and ] when the latter includes a DYK entry (used when the article is also a good article). So, it only appears in the category after the article appears on the Main Page. ] will always include all of the DYK nominations that have passed review, regardless of if they have been on the main page or not. ]] 18:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This all seems like a good idea. I think the next step is for someone technical to write an SQL query that grabs unreviewed articles in ], then boldly add it to the bottom of ]. I'm busy today, so technical help with this is welcome. –] <small>(])</small> 22:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::A few of us had discussed this previously and it was felt that putting it in NPPEASY would be wrong. Anyway, while we discuss this out, there is a report with a slightly larger scope at ] which includes the DYK-passes too. I (or someone else) will move it to the right place once we figure that out. -] (]) 05:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it ought to come with the same caveats that other lists at NPPEASY have, you should still check for copyvio, categories, tagging, etc. The idea being simply that it will probably be a quicker check if we assume someone has already had eyes on the article. ] (]) 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:I actually oppose this being added to ], for the reason that DYK noms are not inherently "easy"/easier and are no more likely to meet an existing notability guideline than any other article. The entries listed there are there because they're more likely to meet a guideline, or because they've been accepted at AfC. This is why I believe it makes more sense to list this at ]. ] (]) 14:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] Sure, articles merely ''nominated'' for DYK aren't easier, but passed DYK noms (which is what I suggested) have been subject to as much scrutiny as any article approved via AfC. ] 14:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I agree with that @]. AfC and NPP reviewers have a different level of experience and different goals than the users who are reviewing at DYK. Sure, there's been ''some'' scrutiny, but realistically they may be just trying to their QPQ done while verifying that the fact is in the article, not evaluating other issues that we may be. I do think it's worth reporting, hence why I think the Reports page is more appropriate, but I don't like the indication that these may be somehow easier to complete. ] (]) 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You know what, I have to agree with Josh here. In an ideal world, a DYK review would likely indicate the article is halfway to being fully reviewed for NPP but given the concerns being continuously raised about the QPQ at ], I think it would be irresponsible to add that to the NPPEASY list. ] (]) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's a good idea but I'd be curious how many articles make it into the DYK queue before being reviewed. Even with our large backlog, the majority of articles are reviewed within a couple of days while DYK nominations often take weeks to process. My gut feeling is that ] was an exception. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::The thing is, anyone can review a DYK, but only users with the NPP right can review an article. ] means that noms are likely reviewed within two months which was added only a few months ago. But its true that DYK is stricter than a normal article plus only ~10% of new articles get nominated for DYK. ] (]) 19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah but we're not talking about skipping review of these articles, just adding them to a list of probably-easy reviews. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if NPPEASY is necessarily the right place, but it's worth finding some way to keep track of these so articles don't end up on the Main Page unreviewed and unindexed. (When people hear from their friends about something crazy from DYK, they should be able to find it on Google.) It's not a common situation, but I don't think it's rare either: for instance, ] will be on the Main Page tomorrow and still hasn't been reviewed (though I'll take care of it momentarily). ] (]) 09:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Agree articles shouldn't be appearing on the Main Page without being reviewed first. Strongly disagree with suggestions that the DYK process has a higher level of scrutiny than AFC. In my experience, the emphasis at DYK is around the hook and in many cases if the article hasn't already been tagged for issues being a 'good read' seems to more important than compliance with policies/guidelines. The point above that NPP and AFC reviewers are more experienced than DYK reviewers in the areas we are looking at is very valid. Oppose successful DYK nominations being added to ]. --] (]) 10:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Edit to add, my comment above was not to put down DYK reviewers or the work they do. Their aim is to get an eye catching snippet on the Main Page which links through to an interesting article, similar to a newspaper editor choosing teasers to put on the front page/main page of the online edition. I'm sure they are just as diligent as NPP or AFC reviewers, but approach articles from a different angle and have different aims. --] (]) 11:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Exactly, it's not a different quality of review perse, it's a review with an entirely different goal and focus. ] (]) 18:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think there's enough consensus here to add passed DYK nominations to WP:NPPEASY, so let's put it somewhere else. We can probably wrap up this thread. –] <small>(])</small> 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::] -] (]) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Seems like a good spot for it. ] (]) 12:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== New Growth Team feature ==
Thanks. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 11:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi NPP, since many of you are also recent changes patrollers, I thought I should mention here that we're going to be trialling a new Growth Team Feature starting on Monday. You may see some unusual newbie behaviour. They're not sockpuppets! They're the new accounts that are being introduced to the new ] task. You'll be able to identify these edits easily, since they'll be tagged like this: '''(Tags: ], ], ])'''. It will also be possible to filter Recent Changes to see all edits suggested by this tool.
:{{u|Insertcleverphrasehere}}, great idea. The points that hit me on a first reading...
:*G10 deletions - blank the article. It comes as standard with ] but may need a reminder for those reviewers doing it manually.
:*Not English - Tag the author's talk page with a <syntaxhighlight>{{subst:contrib-XX1}}</syntaxhighlight> where XX is the language code. The templates available are listed at ].
:*Remove Infringing text - and request ] using {{tl|Copyvio-revdel}}
:*In the BLP section, where No leads to BLPPROD - Yes should include an instruction to tag the talk page with {{tlx|1=WikiProject Biography|2=living=yes}}
:*Draftify - Tag the talk page with the relevant projects - after all the objective is to have as many eyes on the page as possible to ensure its improvement rather than an underhanded deletion via G13.


This feature helps spot likely places for new wikilinks and guides newcomers on how to add them and why. We're starting it really, really small - just 2% of all new accounts will get this feature in the first week - but the number will start rising over time. It should be a big improvement over the "add links" task we have now, which simply points newcomers at articles in ]. If you've ever added ] to an article only to come back a few hours later and find it overlinked to hell and back by a horde of well-meaning newbies, this is why. This new task is smarter, so we shouldn't see that kind of problem. But if we do notice that newcomers are adding bad links too often, or too many links, we can tinker with various settings that will impact this behaviour. And if this causes some kind of horrible unforseen problem, we can pause the experiment at any time.
:For all deletion requests:
:*Check the page logs via the history - has it previously been deleted? Does the author's talk page show old deletion requests using a variation of the title?
::*Is this the 4th or later creation of the article under any title? If so tag the page with a request for {{tl|salt}}.
::*Check the What Links Here - are the previous CSD/PROD/AfD notices on the talk pages of different users? Look into ].
:*Does the page contain an image? Is it hosted on commons? Follow the image to Commons & check the image's contributor.Is it the same editor? If not, look into ]. If the article was an autobio, request deletion of the image on Commons - "self promotion" or "out of scope" are acceptable deletion reasons on Commons. Bear in mind the image may have a legitimate use on other wikis.


More information ] and ]. -- ] (]) 04:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:It would be great if the flowchart could be provided in a format which allowed the reviewer to Copy & paste the suggested tags rather than the tags being locked into an image. Just my 2¢. ] (]) 12:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}}Thanks for your comments ]. I have included a number of your suggestions on the latest revision of the flowchart. A few I'm seeing were definitely needed (g10 blanking for example). Others such as looking into sockpuppetry and notifying users of Notenglish are great things to do, but not explicitly within the requirements of patrolling a page (and so probably don't belong on the flowchart but rather elsewhere on the tutorial page). In the final version, I will see if I can upload it as an SVG file so that text can be copied directly off of the image. I am also going to look into getting clickable links added to the graphic. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 13:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


==Updating problem==
*It's just a very first draft. For a flow chart, it contains a lot of information which tends to make it look crowded. Perhaps present it in A4 Landscape view and check that it can be read at least on a 13" laptop or a ''large'' tablet without shifting the page around the screen. Adding a bit more depth of colour to the boxes and using traditional flow chart shapes to them still needs to be done along with making the shapes clickable links. All in all, an excellent idea that will serve both as a learning aid for new reviewers and as a quick reference for the more experienced ones. ] (]) 12:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone can look into this but ] has not been updated since 24 November. I find this a very useful way of checking out new articles on women rather than looking through the basic list of new articles.--] (]) 16:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::As much as I wanted to use traditional flow chart shapes] and I have access to them, I found that they were unwieldy because of the amount of extra space circles and diamonds take up when you need to squeeze a bunch of text into them. While it ''is'' a flow chart, it is also an instruction manual, so a reasonable amount of detail is important I think, even if it does make it look a bit crowded. The 13" laptop shouldn't be a problem, as I am editing on one right now, not sure about the tablet though as I don't have one on hand. I decided to do the flowchart vertically so that the editor can keep it open in another tab and slowly scroll from top to bottom as they review the article. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
: {{u|Insertcleverphrasehere}} I love it. I have been working on a flowchart of my own, and this one is much more developed than mine. One thing I noticed when reviewing ] was that recreations of deleted articles, or copy/paste moves of drafts are not easily caught. (you already caught an earlier version, ] ). It's something that a reviewer should probably notice when they get to the "Is the article title correct" step, and find that the middle initial was added to work around a previously deleted title. Of course CSD:G4 does not apply, but I thought I'd mention that I saw no explicit step to check for recreations of deleted articles (per deletion discussion) in the current flowchart. ] (]) 14:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:: Minor issue: I noticed that after Remove infringing text and tag with revdel, you go back to Does the article have sufficient context to identify the subject. I think you can loop back to copyvio or continue on to Does the article have 2 or more references. ] (]) 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I'll change it to have it point down at "does the article have 2 or more references"] I've considered "check the deletion log" as an additional step. However, as you have pointed out often recreations are at a different title, and aren't easy to find. Additionally, the main problem with checking the deletion log is that it doesn't give the non-admin any additional information aside from whether to {{tl|salt}} the article. A user can't (or shouldn't) tag with G4 unless the current page is near-identical to the one that was deleted, and they can't know that because they can't see the deleted article. The exception is when they actually saw the other article, but in that case they know about it already, so there isn't much point in checking the deletion log. Even checking the deletion log so see if {{tl|salt}} should be added is an unnecessary step, as this should get caught by the deleting admin anyway. I don't think it is especially useful or necessary to recommend checking the deletion log in this chart (our tutorial doesn't mention it either), though I am open to being convinced. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
*I'd recommend simplifying this a lot. Misplaced Pages has a ton of policies that are in tension with one another, and a lot of the work of NPP is sorting out those tensions and triaging articles the best way possible. When I review I ask myself these questions:
**Is this a copyvio?
**Is this likely a commissioned work and does it show signs of socking?
**Is this advertising? If so, is G11, PROD, or AfD better?
**Does this qualify for any of the other CSD criteria?
**Would this likely survive AfD? If so, are there obvious issues that need tagging?
**If it wouldn't survive AfD, is PROD a better option because it'd be non-controversial?
**Are there any other obvious issues that need tagging?
:I split those out, but you could likely condense them to 5 or less. I'm sure I go through the entire flowchart in my mind, but I don't think of it that way. My concern here is that such a lengthy process will scare people off, when really it is just a series of basic questions if you are somewhat familiar with en.wiki policy. ] (]) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::I hear you ], I do the same thing. However, the reason why you only need a list is because you've done so much reviewing before and are already so familiar with policies that apply to NPP. For example, your question 'would this survive AfD?' is based in a fundamental understanding of that process born through long experience. For someone who isn't, there just isn't a good way for that user to figure out ''what step is next'' when they get lost. As a direct result we end up with either A) incomplete reviews, or B) reviewers ignoring an article because they aren't sure. If you try out the flowchart you'll find that it is actually a lot simpler than it looks when actually using it, because typically you'll only be following through a third or so of the cells at most. This tool isn't meant for experienced reviewers (except perhaps as a reminder list) as experienced reviewers often only need to take one look at a page and they know what its issues are. This page is meant for those that ''don't'' know the reviewing process very well and I'm not sure how simplifying it could be done without the loss of vital information that is necessary for those very users to have. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 19:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
* I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse but unilaterally draftifying an article has no basis in the ], and ] shows no community consensus for it. If a reviewer can't decide whether the article is notable (i.e. they think it's "borderline"), or don't have the information needed to make that call, the more conventional approach would be to leave it for another reviewer, or start an AfD and let the community decide. It's perverse that AfD, the project's oldest and de facto "default" deletion process, only appears on this chart as a backup for contested PRODs, which is explicitly reserved for ''uncontroversial'' deletions. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
**], my reading of that RfC is the exact opposite of yours: the community has pretty clearly rejected the idea that unilateral draftification is not allowed by policy. Barring that, the community has also rejected exempting moves from ]. Barring consensus otherwise, draftifying articles is simply a bold move. ] (]) 19:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::In any case] this flowchart only makes the case for draftification in a very narrow context, i.e. when the article has failed a notability check both on the sources included ''and'' in a google search ''and'' doesn't meet any automatic criteria ''and'' contains useful prose. AfD was added below a contested prod specifically to address two issues: 1) until you try a PROD, you won't know whether it is 'uncontrovertial', and 2) AfD is constantly clogged with articles that have a couple lines and that nobody cares about enough even to comment on, most were never prodded and many would likely have been uncontested. Considering that this flowchart already explicitly includes steps to check for additional sources and for automatic notability before PROD/AfD are invoked, I don't see much reason not to try for a PROD before entering a week-long process at AfD. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|TonyBallioni}} Well we'll have to wait for the close, but there are lots of support !votes in there, and some of the opposes also express their opposition to unilateral draftication, but object to some other aspect of {{u|SoWhy}}'s proposal.
:::::By a quick nose count, its 31-6 opposed to the suggested proposal (not counting ''guideline'' and the like). Yes, consensus is much more than a nose count, and I suspect the close will be nuanced and support the drafting of a guideline (which I don't think anyone is opposed to), but with roughly 83% opposition, there certainly isn't consensus for implementing the proposal at that RfC by any means (and I think SoWhy has admitted this elsewhere). ] (]) 19:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that is a fair and just description of Draftify, {{U|Joe Roe|Joe}}. It's got nothing to do with deletion or even soft deletion. New age Patrol is a ], but that is probably a term mainly only understood by people with a military medic background or experience in large scale emergency services. Until I got sickened by the general lethargy of the community to anything about it other than complain about the research and suggestions made by others, I was largely responsible for getting the Draft namespace created in 2013 and advocating for a Draftify feature. Any truly competent reviewer will know how to use it with discretion, and anyone who doesn't, shouldn't be patrolling pages. I just wish people would stop thinking of NPP as one big article genocide - 50% of it is supposed to put new article creators on the right track so they can get help. Draftifying their articles is one way of doing it. The other alternative is simple deletion. And that doesn't encourage anyone. ] (]) 07:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Insertcleverphrasehere}} And yet that context is still wider than the one for AfD, which is supposed to be our primary deletion process.
::::{{talkquote|until you try a PROD, you won't know whether it is 'uncontrovertial'}}
::::I think this is a pretty catastrophic misunderstanding of ], which states that it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". If the reviewer thinks that the article is potentially notable, then by definition it is potentially a controversial deletion. This is a collaborative project, why are we so keen to insist that even tricky judgements be foisted on a single reviewer? &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::Are you suggesting that the 'no' from "contains useful prose" be directed at AfD instead of at PROD] I can understand the reasoning behind this. I'll implement it and see how it looks. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 19:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} I was suggesting both answers to useful prose? go there, but that would be something. Anyway, like I said, I know I'm flogging a dead horse. This new pseudo-deletion via draftspace is already in the instructions, so I suppose it doesn't make much difference if it's in the accompanying chart or not. I just thought I'd try to make a case to not further sideline consensus-based deletion in favour of something with no oversight at all. Otherwise great work: I think the chart is very clear and will be useful for new reviewers. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 20:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ec}}I tried this out some today, I really like the direction it heads, but I found a few points of friction that might be worth addressing:
*Disambiguation pages aren't covered. (Obvi not a huge issue, but it warrants being mentioned after my demo run)
*Merges/translations/spinoffs without attribution are a huge problem, so just a quick check for proper attribution would be a nice touch.
*Subject-specific notability guidelines ''should'' cover all major awards - so that step is redundant. (I also faintly object to the use of "automatic" over "subject-specific" when the only automatic notability criteria is the GNG)
] (]) 20:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks for your input] Changed "automatic" to "subject-specific" and removed the award cell. I have also noticed that the flowchart doesn't work for dab pages or for some standalone lists. It is more intended for 'standalone topic articles' (there must be a better phrase for this), but I'll look into how to integrate dab pages and lists into the flowchart (or else just put a note in its eventual caption saying that it is intended for reviewing standalone topic articles, not lists or dab pages). Could you clarify what you mean by proper attribution? Not sure how to integrate this, but in ] I notice it says to always leave a redirect when material is merged, specifically for this reason. Perhaps I should change the flowchart so that when merging material it always points at the 'redirect' cell instead of checking for 'plausible search term'. Would this solve this issue? — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 20:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Wow thanks! That was quicker than I ever expected. I figured it might just be a scope issue, and I think it's fine if the scope is just articles I just wanted to be sure to mention it because I wasn't sure. An example might be ], which was split off from ], but nothing ever said so. So I made a dummy edit with the summary "(Content in a previous edit was split from ], see that page's history for attribution)" as far as I am aware, all that the CC BY-SA-3.0 requires is a link for attribution (]). There is also a template <nowiki>{{copied}}</nowiki>. I'm not sure how you would incorporate it either, but I've seen people get under fire after merging content without attribution. I think as long as they go to the ] page it'll be fine. Thanks again, ] (]) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::I'll redirect the arrow from the merge cell to the redirect cell ] and add a note to the merge cell saying to "leave a link to the merged article in edit summary". I should be able to squeeze that in. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 23:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


:Pinging the bot operator, @]. ] (]) 17:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Changes''' Note to {{ping|TonyBallioni}} and {{ping|Kudpung}}. I made some simplifications to the lower part of the chart, I changed the 'categories', 'tags', 'title correct?', and 'wikiprojects' cells to be if-then checks, rather than yes-no with extra cells. All in all this cuts 4 cells out of the flowchart and very much simplifies the lower part of the flowchart (and makes the flowchart shorter in overall length). See the changelog at the file page for more info. I'll keep looking out for more ways to simplify without losing information. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 04:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::Toolforge bots have been unstable for the last 24 hours due to ]. May or not be the root cause here, depending on when this started. –] <small>(])</small> 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::I believe that the flowchart is ready to be added to the tutorial page. While it is sill subject to change from suggested edits, I think it is polished enough that it can be added as is (new input may come after it is added over there). I tried working out how to do this as an SVG file, but decided against it for two reasons. The output file from the program I am using gives an error message <small>Upload failed: This SVG file contains an illegal namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml". (uploadscriptednamespace, http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml)</small>. But also, the SVG fails to render properly with some web browsers (works in google chrome but not internet explorer). In future, converting to a clickable graphic is a good idea, but it is not immediately essential, and I think we should wait a while to see if other changes are suggested/needed. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


:::See it's up any running again now. Thanks for your help.--] (]) 08:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
==New feature/user right for new page reviewers==
In last few days, I came across a few re-created articles that I requested to be salted. That made me thought this. New page reviewers require to see the creator(s) of a deleted article (or recreated one). Not the content like sys-ops can, but only the creator of the article, currently anybody can see which sys-op deleted it but not the creator. I think this feature would be handy for new page reviewers. As the reviewers are already chosen carefully, I dont think it would be misused in any manner. —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:I am not sure if there is another way, but currently I have to this only on the basis of my own knowledge (oh there was an article about this subject), or by skimming through the history of user's talkpage; which is time consuming, so I dont do it always. —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
:: {{u|usernamekiran}} Xtools might help. You can see a list of articles you created (including deleted articles) .
:::There was talk of adding a feature (a small icon or something) to to the feed to denote a new page with a title that had already been previously deleted. It would be more complicated for such a script to show the name of the creator.I would think when clicking on the history the reason for the deletion would be enough. Check out the 55 requests ] and if it's not there, please add it. ] (]) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::There is a way to check this using "what links here"] but it only works if the creating user didn't clear their talk page. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 19:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Mduvekot}} Yes, the xtools shows creations of a particular user, but not the creators of particular page. So it isnt much useful if we have multiple creatots/puppets onboard. :-/ <br /> {{re|Insertcleverphrasehere}} Yes, it only works if the creating user didn't clear their talk page. :-| <br /> {{re|Kudpung}} Thanks. I will add it there soon. :) <br /> —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


== Page yet to be indexed ==
== Does Reviewer Right include getting autopatrolled? ==


If not, it should. If we trust people to review the articles, they should be trusted to create articles that don't need more review. Cheers, ] (]) 01:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) ''']''' - are there any issues? I will like to fix them. ] (]) 15:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*No. You are free to raise the issue at ]. Current consensus is that the two user rights are different skillsets. ] (]) 01:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::Absolutely not. As {{U|TonyBallioni}} says, they are different skillsets. There are still too many reviewers that still haven't got the hang of things despite the tutorials. We have also been proven recently to have been even over generous with according autopatrolled rights. There are also other serious issues that would make such a suggestion very ill advised. ] (]) 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose'''--The skillsets are quite different.And this has been discussed in vain for a lot many times.Regards:)]<sup>]</sup> 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
* ] My brain can't brain these comments. If someone can't be trusted to make articles that don't need reviewing, how can they be trusted to review? But having said that, not remotely worth a ten page debate either way... so I guess I'll see myself out. ] 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
::I know, you'd think--and I've thought--and yet when I went to look into some examples... The only real possibility for implementing this would be to do it in the converse of Sadads's proposal, to cut all reviewers who wouldn't pass autopatrol. And if we think we're short-handed now... (For my sins I'll go review 10 articles right now.) ] (]) 03:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
* My understanding is that it's better to have two separate oversights, and better to have two sets of eyes when things are uncertain. Good reviewer doesn't always translate to good content creator. ]] 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
*I agree with {{u|Alex Shih|Lex}}, reviewing somebody else's creation, and creating own and then reviewing it are very different things. Then we have some reviewers who are not good with all the policies. They might create an article which is out of their area of expertise, hence needing a review. Talking about myself, I am recently getting a lot tempted to publish two of my unfinished draft only because I am too lazy, and bored to work on them lol. (I think she is very attractive {{u|Timothyjosephwood|Tim}}, thanks for the introduction. {{smiley|wink}}) <br /> —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 02:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
::Uhh... You're welcome? ] 02:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


:@], this article hasn't been marked as patrolled yet, so search engines aren't indexing it. If an article is less than 90 days old and hasn't been marked as patrolled, it won't show up in search engine results. But if a new page reviewer marks it as patrolled within this time, it will be indexed. Articles older than 90 days are automatically indexed, even if they remain unpatrolled. – ] <small>(])</small> 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
== NPP Queue and the default treatment of aged articles ==
::Thanks! ] (]) 17:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)


== backdated articles ==
Today, there are two articles in the unreviewed queue from January 2016. One of them, ], appears well formed with 54 references. No reviewer has chosen to click on this one. As a result, it is in limbo, not indexed, available to the experienced WP reader, but unavailable to the typical Googler.
Hello. I was away from NPP/R for a few years. I am trying to start patrolling again. Today, I went to ], and visited some articles. To my surprise, a lot of them were very old articles like ]. It was created in May 2009. I went through the history, but that article was not deleted/recreated. I couldnt see any activity that would have included it in the unreviewed list. Why are a few articles like it being listed in the feed? What am I missing? —usernamekiran ] 21:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


:It was tagged as a "removed redirect" on November 2. Those are counted as new pages. ] (]) 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The NPP queue serves as a valuable quarantine. It traps obviously worthless articles. It gives an immature article time to improve. Personally, I think an article should remain in a user space until it's ready for prime time. The result of this viewpoint is that an article should withstand review at its first appearance in the queue. It may be short. I'm not sure it should be allowed to depend on references yet to be found. I know that makes article creation an individual process and not a community process. If an NPP gets a PROD or AfP, the community can and does get involved to improve the article. The worst of the new articles are dumped immediately with A* or G* deletions anyway.


==Selection of tag sections in curation seems to have stopped working==
When the reviewer community turns its back on an article, what to do then? Assume good faith and automatically mark reviewed anything in the queue for a week, month or year? Assume that if no reviewer is unwilling to click, that the article has no little intrinsic value, and automatically send it to the dustbin?
{{Tracked|T381741|resolved}}
I first noticed it a couple days ago. In the curation tool, under tagging, the feature of selecting subsections seems to have stopped working. I've seen it on two different PC's and two different browsers. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|North8000}}. All fixed. Thanks for reporting. –] <small>(])</small> 21:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Novem Linguae}} Cool. Just tried it, works great. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
The least attractive option is what we do now -- let the article sit in purgatory. ''Review delayed is review denied.'' We could start by making the default view of the NPP queue ''oldest first''. I know it's fun to look a the new feed, but forcing a peek at the old ones first would help clear last year's items from the list of 14,429 unreviewed articles. ] (]) 14:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Rhadow}}, articles get indexed if they're unpatrolled after 90 days<s>, so most of what you're saying is incorrect. ] (]) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)</s> (see next line)
::Hello ] -- Try this experiment yourself: Into Google type ''Avatar 2 wiki''. I did and did not get the article in my results. ] (]) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|Rhadow}}, please see my comment immediately below this one, as well as the comment by TonyBallioni. ] (]) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at it now, it was ] earlier today, which puts it ''back'' in the "noindexed" pile. Thus, it's essentially a zero-day unreviewed article that just happens to show up at the back of the queue. This happens at ] sometimes when someone changes a "submit" timestamp. ] (]) 14:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Gah, shoot me for replying before digging. It turns out the article is a copy/paste pagemove of the ]. I'll do the appropriate histmerging if necessary. ] (]) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
*To expand on what {{u|Primefac}} said, it was transformed from a today. Anytime a redirect is turned into an article, it registers as a new article and is put into the new pages feed by design. ] (]) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
**It's also a severe copyright violation. For those reading, I'll handle this mess. ] (]) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello ] and ] -- So it appears I stumbled on a special case. Sorry. I retried my experiment of unreviewed items from February 2017. I found them on Google. So I gather the practice is ''de facto'' review at ninety days. The unreviewed item remains on the NPP queue, but it is an indexed article in the mainspace. I can simply disregard any item in the list from February 2017 to June 10, 2017, right? ] (]) 14:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:No. An article hits Google after 90 days, but still needs to be reviewed in terms of triage: i.e. is this a copyvio, is this an advertisement (often, yes), does this need tagging for sources, etc. If you want to help out to make sure that less articles get to the 90 day mark, I'd recommend using the to more effectively search for articles that you feel comfortable viewing without having to scroll through the feed. ] (]) 15:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Triage? That I understand. The ones that are going to die anyway, you give them morphine. The ones that need attention, you give them care. What can I do about the ones that are OK? Make them sit in the waiting room again? I don't have the authority to discharge them. ] (]) 16:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
:Currently, nothing, since you don't have the reviewer user right. After you have a bit more experience on Misplaced Pages and feel comfortable with our policies and guidelines, you can apply for it and would have the ability to mark it as patrolled. ] (]) 16:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


I'm on the edge about marking the above page as reviewed and could use a second pair of eyes on it. The article is heavily reliant on self-published source, and I'm concerned that it contains original research. There does appear to be some academic coverage of the topic, for example and . However, the definitions of the "AI trust paradox" in these sources seem to diverge – one defines it as a situation "in which individuals’ willingness to use AI-enabled technologies exceeds their level of trust in these capabilities" while the other seems to define it as a situation where AI users "ignore all the risks due to the usability of fast intelligent systems". Another describes the AI trust paradox as a situation where humans are less willing to trust AI-generated text because they can't have a shared set of experiences with AI like they could with a human author. My impression is that while there are a few matches for the phrase "AI trust paradox" in sources, it isn't a well defined topic yet. It seems like it could be ] for an article due to the rather hazy definition of the term, but I'd like to get input from some other reviewers. ] (]) 19:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== A curiosity ==
:thanks for post--] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive ==
Have a look at ] & its source code. I've left some comments on the author's talk page but I'm not sure where to take it from here. It's certainly an interesting experiment at the very least. ] (]) 23:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
:I think PROD is the best way to go, though it will invariably end up at AFD. I'm not sure this is a proper use of ], mostly due to the reasons you left ]. Way too big, way too messy. Even as an article in and of itself, I don't really see keeping it around, since it's more of a meta history. ] (]) 00:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::Is all the information on this page copied from other pages? If not, I'd say we should keep it around at least as a draft so that material can be merged from it into other articles (i.e. draftify it and then leave messages on other relevant pages suggesting that there is material that can possibly be merged). If any material is merged though, this should remain as a redirect for attribution purposes per ] (possibly targeted at ]). I'd suggest AfD rather than a PROD to get more eyes on this, this is an odd one for sure. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{u|Insertcleverphrasehere}}, the material isn't copied, it's transcluded. Thus, there technically isn't any "content" on the page itself; just a bunch of ] from other articles. ] (]) 01:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Ignore what I said about merging then] Thanks for the reply. — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 01:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:It's a neat technical trick but leaves the attribution lacking. If the material were copied or split from another article there would be a {{tl|copied}} template pointing there for attribution. If it were a template, then it's got the kind of attribution yoiu'd expect for a template - none. This method leaves the article looking, on the face of it (and as demonstrated in the comments here), as if it were written by one author - and no attribution to the authors of the material. I don't see 50+ {{tl|copied}} templates being viable. ] (]) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
::{{u|Cabayi}}, the attribution is on the page that the content is translated from. We don't have {{t|copied}} templates on every page where a template itself is transcluded, but we have attribution and contribution histories for those as well. As long as there ''is'' attribution (somewhere) I don't really see the issue. ] (]) 13:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
== Not sure what to do with this one ==
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | ] | <span style="font-size: 85%">''']''' </span>
| rowspan=3 | ]
|-
|
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
* Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
* ] will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
* Barnstars will also be granted for ] previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself ]
|}
] (]) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1263150419 -->


== Reference advice ==
If someone could take another look at ], I would appreciate it.


I reviewed ] and ] yesterday and tagged with single-source (each episode was linked back to an Indian streaming service), and left a note for the author saying that the URL for service was returning "Access denied" for me. They have now added a second streaming source to each entry as a reference. My question is - do these count as viable ]? I'm thinking not, just as a spotify "page" for a song wouldn't count as a source. Thoughts? (And if this is in the wrong place, let me know and I'll ask at ]. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
It appears to have been ], {{diff|Jakemadoff210|prev|793112815|declined at AfC}}, {{diff|Jakemadoff210|prev|799421304|accepted at AfC}}, and then . The new recreation seems to be the declined AfC submission. My instinct is to draftify it, because it isn't quite ''unambiguous'', (after-all, someone thought it was enough to pass AfC) but a second opinion would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Menaechmi}} Sent it to G4, again. The last AfD was clear about the advertorial content. I'm pretty sure this is getting SALT'ed, too. An SPI might be in order. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::...This is on my watchlist, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. ]] 17:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
:::{{Justcurious}}does the same editor create the article? <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 22:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
::::The final two creations were by the same editor. Two different editors created the first two versions in '14/'16. ] (]) 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


:Hello, I am moving the chapters to draft already, the series already exist and having chapters without source is not neccesary. It's weird the editor kept on removing the tags too. I believe if the chapters not nominated for deletion, then dratifying them will be better ] (]) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Autoconfirmed article creation trial ==
:The second one’s source gave me a pop-up that my iPhone was hacked. Obviously not, and if I clicked on it I might have gotten hacked. Not an RS… ] (]) ] 13:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks :-) ]<sup>]</sup> 11:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
On September 14, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) started a '''six-month trial''' to require users obtain ] status in order to directly create articles in mainspace. If you have reviewed pages since then, you may have noticed that no articles are being created by very new users. This is because the trial '''has already started'''. The WMF will collect data on this trial for the six-month period. Once the trial is complete, the WMF will consult with the community to determine if this restriction on article creation should continue.


== Bug: Review messages with a vertical bar in them get cut off when sent to the user ==
'''This does not mean that new users cannot write articles.''' New users that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed may still create ] articles, and volunteers participating in ] may approve or decline these drafts. However, users that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed cannot create articles without going through this process until they become confirmed or autoconfirmed.
{{Tracked|T382861}}
I reviewed a page and left a message using the Page Curation tool. When it was added to the article's talk page, , but when it was sent to the user's talk page, in the middle. My guess is that the vertical bar character somehow confused the program, so it failed to send the rest of the message to the user. –&nbsp;] 13:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== NPPHOUR, A1, and A3 ==
----


] says that we should wait at least one hour before marking a page for deletion unless there are serious content problems. However, ] and ] have a shorter delay; namely, 10 minutes. Which one should take priority in the setting of seemingly A1/A3-eligible pages? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
'''What should I expect?'''
:10 minutes is the baseline policy requirement. The one-hour standard is more along the lines of informal guidance for reviewers; it doesn't have the same level of community consensus behind it, and anecdotally I'd say it's pretty often not followed. ] (]) 06:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::The ten minutes is also just guidance (from the footnote to A1 and A3: {{tq|there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice}}). Use your judgement: the underlying message of both rules is to assess whether the creator could still be working on the article, and give them time to do so, before deleting it. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, you're right. What I should have said is that the ten-minute suggestion is somewhat more widely accepted than NPPHOUR, which is a fairly recent addition. (But judging from the deletion log, many people don't follow either.) ] (]) 09:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure I agree regarding the respective levels of consensus. ] evolved from a "15 minute rule" that was added to NPP's guidelines , and before that general advice to patrol "from the bottom" of the log rather than brand new pages which has been . It was increased successively to the current hour following (IIRC unanimous) consensus in talk page discussions. I would say there is broad and long-standing community consensus that it ''should'' be followed, at least. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Well, unanimous consensus on ]. NPP can give guidance, but ultimately this is a deletion policy issue, and so far ]. At any rate, it's a philosophical question as long as no one follows the guidance; 9 of the last 10 A7s in the log were tagged within an hour, for example. ] (]) 10:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::To add, I actually do think waiting an hour is generally good advice. I just think it's worth being clear that it's not an idea that's gotten very much traction in practice. ] (]) 11:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== Errors (tpyos) in the act of disambiguation ==
You should expect fewer number of articles passing through the ] daily. Since it is expected that confirmed and autoconfirmed users will be more familiar with Misplaced Pages content policies, most articles will likely no longer have ''obvious'' problems. However, articles may still fail ], so you should be careful to check whether each article covers a notable subject. Remember that even confirmed and autoconfirmed users can still be relatively new to Misplaced Pages, so you should be ].


Just wanted to post a thing here. Not necessarily a "long discussion", or even if this is in the right location, but still something to get some perspective feedback on from New Page Reviewers who might see these in the queue. How do reviewers treat typos in redirects? I'm happy to patrol typoes in words that are likely to have typoes. But that's not really the focus of this section. The main reason that I came here was to ask "do you all treat typoes in a topic equally with typoes that are in a disambiguator?"
'''Why wasn't there a request for comment or other discussion on this topic?'''


I'm probably going to ramble here but hopefully you all see the vision.
] for this trial was made in 2011. A few hundred editors participated. The proposal gained consensus, but the WMF at the time rejected the proposal. However, after renewed discussion, the WMF has agreed to perform this trial as a research experiment. After a few months of consultation with the community, the trial was launched with the WMF taking responsibility for collecting statistics.


Because I think there's a major difference, generally speaking. I think that typoes in a topic are generally fine. But typoes in a parenthetical disambiguator I can't find a reason why that would ever be ''likely'' or okay. The parenthetical disambiguator is not a topic. It is something that Misplaced Pages adds to a title to give it a unique location in the encyclopedia. By all accounts in the MOS, is a technical entity. Because every page must have a unique title, a parenthesized term is never going to be the "topic". Like lets say there's a redirect titled ]. Lets say that the two words were equally easy to spell, and equally plausible to misspell. If we were to compare the helpfulness of the two following redirects, I think that ] is more helpful of a redirect than ]. Misspellings in the topic, well, that's just always going to happen probably. It's something readers ''want to learn about''. Typoes in the disambiguator are not likely. Disambiguators are a technical addition to pages and wouldn't be on a printed encyclopedia if it could be avoided. The topic is "apple", not "apple (fruit)". We should accommodate some likely typoes for "apple" if we really wanted but probably not because in this case "apple" is really easy to spell. Typoes on ] are a bit more likely and those can and should definitely be accommodated. But not typoes in the technical addition that Misplaced Pages requires is used to disambiguate pages.
'''How can I know more about this trial?'''


I think there's one exception, and that is capitalized disambiguators. I think that ] and ] are equally likely. My unpopular opinion is that I don't think two of these are ''useful'', but that doesn't mean I don't think it's likely. That's a whole can of worms that I'd like to leave exempt from the discussion of typoes in disambiguators. Because I'm struggling to think of a single misspelled word in a disambiguator that can be helpful. ''Various'' disambiguators can be useful, such as ] if we really wanted it. But not misspelling the technical addition that Misplaced Pages requires we use to disambiguate different topics. Thoughts on this mindset? What do you all do, and do you patrol all typoes equally? <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The full details of the trial are available at ]. <span class="nowrap" style="font-kerning:normal">] (])</span> 02:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


== Unreviewed page ==
===Just four points===
#The ''community'' will discuss what happens after the trial. The volunteers will welcome any input from the Foundation but with the exception of a few purely legal issues the WMF is not empowered to make any ruling by fiat over the individual Wikipedias.
#Due to a 2012 issue involving a senior WMF staff and his junior assistant over a community NPP sub-project, this Misplaced Pages is conducting its own parallel set of stats and analysis. We highly appreciate the Foundation's efforts to provide professional auditing of the trial, but these safeguards are necessary.
#Advocacy: Although ] do not constitute the largest portion of unwanted new pages, one of the main goals of ACTRIAL is to see if it can dissuade paid editing. It's expected that these people who exploit our volunteer work for their own and their clients' gain and scamming the subjects of BLPs will eventually find workarounds. Reviewers are asked to be especially vgilant for all the hallmarks of commissioned work and report anything as quickly as possible to COIN and SPI and make liberal use of the ] warnings.
#As the winners of the February coordinator election never took up their posts, I would like to personally thank {{U|TonyBallioni}} who has (unwittingly) become the de facto coord. Please give him all your support.
] (]) 05:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Is there a way to check which articles are placed into New pages feed the longest? A single page from 2017 days ago does not seem to be reviewed in any way and it was not created on that day. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== A VERY BIG THANK YOU ==


to all those who supported the 6-year crusade to get ACTRIAL off the ground. There's a party at my house tonight. I've strung coloured lights around the pool, there will be fireworks and much merry making. No need to bring a bottle - the drinks are on me. ] (]) 04:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC) :Redirects that have been converted to articles are automatically added to the New Pages feed. Most of the "oldest" articles in the feed would be of this kind. -] (]) 05:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sort by oldest, then scroll backwards until you start seeing a bunch of unreviewed articles from the same month in 2024. That's the "real" back of the queue. –] <small>(])</small> 06:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:W00T!!! It's been a long, long roller coaster to get to this point. Thank you thank you!! ] (]) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
::I already edited said page. Just had to limit newest page to 2017 days ago. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">] ]</span> 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
:::You can also set your "oldest" boundary date to exclude the very old ones that are always there as the result of redirect wars and/or vandalism. I and others have gotten almost all of January and February 2024 knocked out as part of the backlog drive (lot of AfD material left there) so I welcome fellow patrollers to join me in March 2024 :) ] (]) 22:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
::::Deal me in for a March sprint or next one. I couldn't do the January for various work reasons. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Have a slice of ] celebration cake! — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 05:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::@]: We're currently on a fourth month cycle for backlog drives, so May is our next expected drive. Ideally we'd prefer only two a year, but we're doing what we can to keep the backlog under 10k. ] (]) 15:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
|}

::I would have loved to attend the party but Thailand is very long drive from my home. Also, I have some commitment with DumbBOT already. He will be visiting me tonight. Also, I dont consume alcohol. {{smiley|tongue}} —<span style="font-size: 104%; letter-spacing:1.5pt;"><span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran]</span></span> 07:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
== Very low redirects ==
::: Don't think he mentioned booze.

::: But on a lighter note, GOOD LUCK to them who have already paid for their articles but didn't get them through on time! REFUND! ✋ &mdash; ]] 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm Ampil. The backlog of unreviewed redirects is very low. '''12''' redirects are unreviewed. Please see ].
:Great news! We should all make a push to clear the backlog, while the tide is (somewhat) stemmed. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


*July 2024. 30,000 redirects unreviewed.
*Cleaning up after the party we found an empty bottle of Chartreuse, 20 empty bottles/cans of beer, 12 empty bottles of Côtes du Rhône AOC (among them 2 bottles of Lirac, 2 of Gigondas, and 3 of Cairanne), 26 cans of Coke, 13 Tetrapacks of Orange juice. No minors were present. ] (]) 06:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
*January 2025. 12 redirects unreviewed.
::It sounds like the WMF gave you a perfect excuse to age some great wine to perfection] {{emoji|1F377}} — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 11:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I celebrated with you in spirit. Congratulations, {{u|Kudpung|Kudz}}!! We know how hard you worked to get this done. <sup><font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font>]]</sup> 17:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


Thanks. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 07:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== New editor creations backlog drive ==


:Surely due to our current ]. Woohoo! –] <small>(])</small> 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of backlog drives, as I've stated before: but I think with ACTRIAL we have a real chance to clear the backlog of unreviewed pages created by new users. There are currently over 700 dating back to June. Since there is a 90 day NOINDEX period, we're coming up on the end of it. I think it'd be good to undertake as a project trying to clear the review backlog of these pages as soon as possible. Also, my standard request that everyone check for copyright issues and not to go too fast. Thanks to all. Hopefully ACTRIAL will help us move forward towards a world where everyone has access to free ''quality'' knowledge. :) ] (]) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
:I believe the last time the backlog was cleared entirely was the 2023 May backlog drive, so I'm grateful to see us get it cleared out again.
:Now we just need some extra focus on the backlog of articles, which is currently far too large at ~12,500 more than halfway through the drive. We started at 16,260 unreviewed articles, and the change in that backlog is -3,775 (-23.22%), so I'd love to see some of our reviewers shift their focus there now. ] (]) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:We've hit zero a few times; I tried to get a screenshot but can't find it now, so I guess we'll have to do it again for the historical record :). Also, I just realized there's a backlog drive, gotta go sign up and hope it counts retrospectively. ] (]) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: It does indeed count retroactively! ] (]) 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


== Checking for fictitious references ==
:I'll second that. A quick look at that backlog seems to reveal that they are actually quite easy to patrol, but note {{U|TonyBallioni}}'s caveats. ] (]) 06:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:: I'm up for that! It would be so satisfying to see that number go down. It was a bit like trying to empty a bathtub with a dripping tap using a teaspoon. ] (]) 07:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:::June has been cleared, attacking July!] (]) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Good work mate] I'd help out, but kinda busy with work at the moment... — '''''<small>] <sup>(])</sup></small>''''' 09:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::July is finished, I'm going to take a bit of a break now, good luck with August! ] (]) 17:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|TonyBallioni}} Is there a link to the ACTRIAL related back log? If there is I can't seem to find it. Thanks in advance. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
{{od}}{{replyto|Steve Quinn}} just set the filters at ] to be new editors. ] (]) 04:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
:{{reply|TonyBallioni}}. Sorry for pinging you again. Just want to say - I was doing this for awhile, but wasn't sure this was correct. Now I know it is. Thanks again. ----] (]) 04:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I keep seeing articles get patrolled while having several ]. Please make sure to click on every URL/ISBN/DOI that a new article cites{{snd}}if you find multiple 404s, the article is likely AI-generated. If you see other AI indicators (e.g. <code>**Markdown bold**</code> or <code>(https://example.org)</code>), the article should be draftified or tagged with {{tl|AI-generated}}. See ] for more advice/help. ] (]) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
== ACTRIAL and the New pages feed ==
:If not already mentioned, can this disclaimer of sorts be included in NPP guidelines and instructions? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 05:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
{{tracked|T175225}}
::Might be too much detail for ], but would be great for an essay such as ] or something. But then again, that'd have to be counterbalanced with divulging too much information on this topic, the same way that we wouldn't want to necessarily make a list of tells for ] editing. –] <small>(])</small> 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Would it be possible to somehow tweak the filters for "Were created by new editors" to be more open. Would love it to show new pages by relatively new editors, even if they are now autoconfirmed. It used to show people with over a hundred edits. Now sure what the filter is set to now, but maybe have this include anyone not "extendedconfirmed" at this point.--] ] 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::Slightly offtopick of fictuous refs, can completely AI generated looking articles be draftified before 1 hour. NPPHOUR exists as a chance for the author to improve the article, but entire AI articles can barely be improved. Of course the 10 min minimum can stay though <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:See {{phab|T175225}}. This is currently being worked on by the WMF. ] (]) 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
::::Is there a common maintenance tag that can be added for when we see fictitious references? They will likely increase, so some clear tag or verbiage may help. It may already exist, though I have not seen it. ] (]) 08:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Can we please make sure that the terms used for describing the combination of age and number of edits that we conflate to "experience" is clear and unambiguous? What intuitively distinguishes 'Learners' from 'Newcomers'? It seems that the WMF thinks that we, "those not in the know", (sic) can't tell the difference between autoconfirmed and extended confirmed and they have decided to invent new descriptions that nobody knows the precise meaning of. ] (]) 20:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::I've seen a couple of these fictitious references as well. I thought it was just one instance. That is a pain. I was really puzzled the first time around. It was bizarre. At the moment I'm servicing the {{tl|Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts}} cat. Sub-cat on that maybe. I was suprised it doesn't take too long to learn to spot the stuff. It seems to be a particular way of writing, well, for the individual. You will spot it. Don't be afraid to remove it once you recognise it. Quality is what we are looking for. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Mduvekot}}, it is done that way because they are integrating these filters with other filters that are being rolled out across multiple WMF wikis. The definition of autoconfirmed and extended confirmed change from wiki to wiki so they are trying to standardize the filters. ] (]) 02:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
:::::There is in fact {{tlx|AI-generated source}}, and reviewers may find other useful resources at ].<span id="ClaudineChionh:1737448832262:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNNew_pages_patrol/Reviewers" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ] · ])</small> 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::: {{replyto|TonyBallioni}} I know, and it's too late anyway. I should have let this one go. I know you're trying to do the best you can (it's much appreciated), and I suppose I could work with it even if the filters were called X and Y. I'm admittedly naive about the way the page curation tool is being developed, but given the response to {{phab|T169244}} and {{phab|T169120}} my skepticism about the effectiveness of the development of the filters shouldn't come as a surpise. I wish I had a better understanding of how features are designed by the WMF. I've read https://www.mediawiki.org/WMF_product_development_process and came away more confused than I was before. I have worked on very large, really complex (agile) software projects, so you'd think I ought to be able to understand it. ] (]) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Useful info, thanks for sharing. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
* Multiple 404s also occur in translated articles that have old references so it's not always a sign of AI, ] (]) 21:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:30, 22 January 2025

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions		Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
11139 ↑23
Oldest article
15 months old
Redirects
19
Oldest redirect
30 hours old
Article reviews
2120
Redirect reviews
5591
  • There is a very large articles backlog
Shortcut
This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers.
Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (invite link)
For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.
For discussion on topics purely relevant to coordination tasks, such as backlog drives, please post at Coordination Talk
Top New Page Reviewers database report (updated by bot 2x daily)

NPP backlog

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of January 20, 2025

Skip to top Skip to bottom
Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

Misplaced Pages talk:Page Curation:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Noticeboard:
1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present.

Autopatrol

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T374300

Hi all. Just created a new entry for the first time in a little while at Victor Albisu. I’m autopatrolled as well as being a reviewer so I was surprised to see that the page looks unreviewed. Is that a change in process that I’ve overlooked or might there be some technical hiccup I should attend to? Of course always happy to have more eyes on new work, just wondered what was up and if I had missed anything important. Thank you for any insight! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this might be a PageTriage bug. I've filed phab:T374300. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah super, thank you for filing that! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this is related. Previously if a redirect was changed to an article that was so poor I reverted to the redirect I had to mark the redirect as patrolled manually. Starting a few weeks ago the redirects have been automatically marked as patrolled because I'm autopatrolled. --John B123 (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning. That sounds like good behavior. If one has autopatrol, one's redirects should probably not be being marked as unreviewed. Do you agree with that line of thinking? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree that redirects should not be marked as unreviewed if you are autopatrolled. Presumably there were changes to the PageTriage script recently so redirects are marked at reviewed if you are autopatrolled. I wondered if these changes caused the problem outlined by Innisfree987? --John B123 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes I was thinking just the same—sounds like a definite improvement but maybe the tinkering switched off something else. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • no, I wouldn't say so. Some autopatrolled users wouldn't be good with r cat shells, and similar redirect stuff. I think these two should be exclusive, or maybe we need to consult the folks who patrol redirects. They are well suited to answer this. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Another draft that didn't get autopatrolled

Hello Innisfree987, @Novem Linguae, I also faced the same issue today. I got to know about the ticket late. Sadly, my article was moved back to the draftspace Love, Sitara. Still, if it could be of any help as reference please expedite the ticket. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@C1K98V: you know you can just move the article back, right? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Elli, A reviewer has moved the article to draftspace with a relevant notability policy. I don't share the same opinion and S/He don't agree with me. It's totally fine, I respect their decision assuming good faith. But, I would like to get the article restored back to mainspace through the Deletion review route. Thanks C1K98V 17:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@C1K98V: Deletion review is not the appropriate avenue to contest a draftification. If you object to a draftification you move the page back to main space. Editors are welcome to disagree but if you believe it meets then the guidelines that we have in place then just move it. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh, You sure that it won't look like I'm abusing my autopatrolled rights. Also, I believe admins have many important tasks to deal with so I don't want to add another AFD. Also, it will appear as a recreated article in the page curation and xtools which I don't want. Hope, you both are getting me. Thanks for your consideration. C1K98V 17:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@C1K98V: You've had two different admins tell you it's okay. Draft space is entirely optional and, if you're concerned about the article being marked as reviewed, simply mark it as unreviewed. As for xtools, there's no way of changing that, the redirect left behind will always show that and you have to accept it. Good thing is it's mostly meaningless since people have their redirects overwritten or G6 deleted all the time. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate and accept your opinion and will happily move the article back to mainspace. But I have seen the scenario where an article which was deleted (move to draft cases) and you don't want it to look like recreated or deleted in page curation/xtools. You can seek restoration of the article through UDEL and the above said tag will be eliminated automatically. Thanks C1K98V 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
On a side note, I have to agree with the original reviewer that the article doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@John B123, I disagree with you as well. I believe it satisfy both the WP:NFF or WP:GNG. Thanks C1K98V 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@C1K98V: How is the production of the film notable to meet WP:NFF? Which sources do you think give WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG? As far as I can see there is only routine coverage based on press releases, social media posts and quotes from those involved in the film. John B123 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It might be time to move that conversation to the article talk page or AfD, this is not the right place to discuss the notability of individual articles. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Do NPPs need to check an article's history?

When reviewing a mainspace article, do NPPs need to check an article's history tab? It's not in any of our flowcharts, but it's at WP:NPP. Context: –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

More context- the original changes came shortly after a a disagreement over whether editors were expected to check the article history/read the article before reviewing it. The incident has been taken care of very thoroughly, but I think the background is helpful to explain why Novem Linguae made the change, and to clarify that the change was not made without discussion. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's good practice to have a look at the article history, especially if from the back of the queue as there may be move/redirect warring activity going on there Josey Wales 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I think checking the history is important. I'm not sure it makes sense in a flowchart, since I think Joe is right about it being part of many different stages, but it should be part of any kind of checklist, I think. -- asilvering (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I normally check if something is off or if the article is missing references or claims of notability. If I see a bunch of edits, or large chunks of material added or removed then I'll dig a little deeper. As @Joseywales1961 said also if it's an older article I'll check it as well. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Checking page histories is useful for spotting a wide range of problems and is quick (most new articles have one page histories). For that reason I think it's good advice to make it part of your basic NPP workflow. It's not about what reviewers "need" or are "required" to do. Practically nothing on this page is mandatory in the sense that it should always be done on every page (this also goes for the section below about sourcing). – Joe (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Keyword searching coming to NewPagesFeed

Hi y'all, just wanted to give a heads up that starting next thursday, Special:NewPagesFeed will get the ability to search through page snippets (thanks to work done by @Rockingpenny4 as part of Google Summer of Code 2024). The feature is currently deployed on beta wiki, thoughts and feedback are welcomed. Sohom (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta This sounds helpful. Thank you also @Rockingpenny4. FULBERT (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't even express how exciting this is to me. I've been using MPGuy's external NPP browser (toolforge) for key word searches for a while now. I typically point to WP:NPPSORT when recruiting recruiting and encouraging folks to give NPP a shot, telling them to work where they're familiar with first, so this is an extra feature that will make it much easier to dive in! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect backlog is very low and getting lower.

What a nice downward curve. But any idea why? Cremastra (u — c) 21:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 and I went hard at it during the backlog drive, and we've both continued to do so. We also had a significant amount of help from @Blethering Scot. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed: between the three of you and Dr vulpes, you've reviewed more than 16,000 redirects in the last 30 days, which is great work. Cremastra (u — c) 21:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Shame on me for not giving Vulpes any credit! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I made a small push and managed to get it down to zero, at least for the moment. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

NPP school teachers needed

Hello all. Was wondering if anyone decently experienced (maybe >500 patrols) would be interested in being a teacher for WP:NPPSCHOOL? DreamRimmer recently filled all 3 of their slots, so we want to make sure we still have capacity for additional students. If interested let me know and I will set you up with more info. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Also @Zippybonzo and @Cassiopeia, are you still active NPP school trainers, and is the "student slots available" column at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers up to date? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I am still happy to take students, however all the statistics are probably quite outdated so I'll update them now :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 07:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae and Zippybonzo:, I always have slot available and have been active since day one as I am the one who set up the program. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 00:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation has an RfC

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?— jlwoodwa (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Passed DYK nominations to WP:NPPEASY?

I moved Joel Ross (vibraphonist) to mainspace in June, the DYK nom for it was passed that same month, it appeared on the main page in July, and yet it wasn't patrolled until November. Since DYK requires more scrutiny than AfC, which is already on NPPEASY, I think passed DYK reviews should appear on that page. Any way to implement that? Mach61 15:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @SD0001. These should be tracked properly in Category:Misplaced Pages Did you know articles, I'm just not sure when that CAT is implemented, if it's once nominated, approved, or posted. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The category Category:Misplaced Pages Did you know articles is added by Template:DYK talk and Template:Article history when the latter includes a DYK entry (used when the article is also a good article). So, it only appears in the category after the article appears on the Main Page. Category:Passed DYK nominations will always include all of the DYK nominations that have passed review, regardless of if they have been on the main page or not. Reconrabbit 18:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This all seems like a good idea. I think the next step is for someone technical to write an SQL query that grabs unreviewed articles in Category:Passed DYK nominations, then boldly add it to the bottom of Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews. I'm busy today, so technical help with this is welcome. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
A few of us had discussed this previously and it was felt that putting it in NPPEASY would be wrong. Anyway, while we discuss this out, there is a report with a slightly larger scope at User:MPGuy2824/sandbox1 which includes the DYK-passes too. I (or someone else) will move it to the right place once we figure that out. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it ought to come with the same caveats that other lists at NPPEASY have, you should still check for copyvio, categories, tagging, etc. The idea being simply that it will probably be a quicker check if we assume someone has already had eyes on the article. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I actually oppose this being added to WP:NPPEASY, for the reason that DYK noms are not inherently "easy"/easier and are no more likely to meet an existing notability guideline than any other article. The entries listed there are there because they're more likely to meet a guideline, or because they've been accepted at AfC. This is why I believe it makes more sense to list this at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Reports. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh Sure, articles merely nominated for DYK aren't easier, but passed DYK noms (which is what I suggested) have been subject to as much scrutiny as any article approved via AfC. Mach61 14:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that @Mach61. AfC and NPP reviewers have a different level of experience and different goals than the users who are reviewing at DYK. Sure, there's been some scrutiny, but realistically they may be just trying to their QPQ done while verifying that the fact is in the article, not evaluating other issues that we may be. I do think it's worth reporting, hence why I think the Reports page is more appropriate, but I don't like the indication that these may be somehow easier to complete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
You know what, I have to agree with Josh here. In an ideal world, a DYK review would likely indicate the article is halfway to being fully reviewed for NPP but given the concerns being continuously raised about the QPQ at WT:DYK, I think it would be irresponsible to add that to the NPPEASY list. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It's a good idea but I'd be curious how many articles make it into the DYK queue before being reviewed. Even with our large backlog, the majority of articles are reviewed within a couple of days while DYK nominations often take weeks to process. My gut feeling is that Joel Ross (vibraphonist) was an exception. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The thing is, anyone can review a DYK, but only users with the NPP right can review an article. WP:DYKTIMEOUT means that noms are likely reviewed within two months which was added only a few months ago. But its true that DYK is stricter than a normal article plus only ~10% of new articles get nominated for DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah but we're not talking about skipping review of these articles, just adding them to a list of probably-easy reviews. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if NPPEASY is necessarily the right place, but it's worth finding some way to keep track of these so articles don't end up on the Main Page unreviewed and unindexed. (When people hear from their friends about something crazy from DYK, they should be able to find it on Google.) It's not a common situation, but I don't think it's rare either: for instance, this article will be on the Main Page tomorrow and still hasn't been reviewed (though I'll take care of it momentarily). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree articles shouldn't be appearing on the Main Page without being reviewed first. Strongly disagree with suggestions that the DYK process has a higher level of scrutiny than AFC. In my experience, the emphasis at DYK is around the hook and in many cases if the article hasn't already been tagged for issues being a 'good read' seems to more important than compliance with policies/guidelines. The point above that NPP and AFC reviewers are more experienced than DYK reviewers in the areas we are looking at is very valid. Oppose successful DYK nominations being added to WP:NPPEASY. --John B123 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit to add, my comment above was not to put down DYK reviewers or the work they do. Their aim is to get an eye catching snippet on the Main Page which links through to an interesting article, similar to a newspaper editor choosing teasers to put on the front page/main page of the online edition. I'm sure they are just as diligent as NPP or AFC reviewers, but approach articles from a different angle and have different aims. --John B123 (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not a different quality of review perse, it's a review with an entirely different goal and focus. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough consensus here to add passed DYK nominations to WP:NPPEASY, so let's put it somewhere else. We can probably wrap up this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Reports#Unreviewed DYK/GA/FL/FA -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a good spot for it. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

New Growth Team feature

Hi NPP, since many of you are also recent changes patrollers, I thought I should mention here that we're going to be trialling a new Growth Team Feature starting on Monday. You may see some unusual newbie behaviour. They're not sockpuppets! They're the new accounts that are being introduced to the new Add a link task. You'll be able to identify these edits easily, since they'll be tagged like this: (Tags: Visual edit, Newcomer task, Suggested: add links). It will also be possible to filter Recent Changes to see all edits suggested by this tool.

This feature helps spot likely places for new wikilinks and guides newcomers on how to add them and why. We're starting it really, really small - just 2% of all new accounts will get this feature in the first week - but the number will start rising over time. It should be a big improvement over the "add links" task we have now, which simply points newcomers at articles in Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. If you've ever added Template:Underlinked to an article only to come back a few hours later and find it overlinked to hell and back by a horde of well-meaning newbies, this is why. This new task is smarter, so we shouldn't see that kind of problem. But if we do notice that newcomers are adding bad links too often, or too many links, we can tinker with various settings that will impact this behaviour. And if this causes some kind of horrible unforseen problem, we can pause the experiment at any time.

More information here and here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating problem

I don't know if anyone can look into this but User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Biography/Women has not been updated since 24 November. I find this a very useful way of checking out new articles on women rather than looking through the basic list of new articles.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the bot operator, @SD0001. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Toolforge bots have been unstable for the last 24 hours due to phab:T380844. May or not be the root cause here, depending on when this started. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
See it's up any running again now. Thanks for your help.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Page yet to be indexed

Shahi Jama Masjid - are there any issues? I will like to fix them. Upd Edit (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Upd Edit, this article hasn't been marked as patrolled yet, so search engines aren't indexing it. If an article is less than 90 days old and hasn't been marked as patrolled, it won't show up in search engine results. But if a new page reviewer marks it as patrolled within this time, it will be indexed. Articles older than 90 days are automatically indexed, even if they remain unpatrolled. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Upd Edit (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

backdated articles

Hello. I was away from NPP/R for a few years. I am trying to start patrolling again. Today, I went to special:newpagesfeed, and visited some articles. To my surprise, a lot of them were very old articles like Operation Krivaja '95. It was created in May 2009. I went through the history, but that article was not deleted/recreated. I couldnt see any activity that would have included it in the unreviewed list. Why are a few articles like it being listed in the feed? What am I missing? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It was tagged as a "removed redirect" on November 2. Those are counted as new pages. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Selection of tag sections in curation seems to have stopped working

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T381741
Resolved

I first noticed it a couple days ago. In the curation tool, under tagging, the feature of selecting subsections seems to have stopped working. I've seen it on two different PC's and two different browsers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

North8000. All fixed. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Novem Linguae Cool. Just tried it, works great. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

AI trust paradox

I'm on the edge about marking the above page as reviewed and could use a second pair of eyes on it. The article is heavily reliant on this self-published source, and I'm concerned that it contains original research. There does appear to be some academic coverage of the topic, for example this and this. However, the definitions of the "AI trust paradox" in these sources seem to diverge – one defines it as a situation "in which individuals’ willingness to use AI-enabled technologies exceeds their level of trust in these capabilities" while the other seems to define it as a situation where AI users "ignore all the risks due to the usability of fast intelligent systems". Another online source describes the AI trust paradox as a situation where humans are less willing to trust AI-generated text because they can't have a shared set of experiences with AI like they could with a human author. My impression is that while there are a few matches for the phrase "AI trust paradox" in sources, it isn't a well defined topic yet. It seems like it could be too soon for an article due to the rather hazy definition of the term, but I'd like to get input from some other reviewers. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Reference advice

I reviewed Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2001 series) - Chapter 1 and Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2001 series) - Chapter 2 yesterday and tagged with single-source (each episode was linked back to an Indian streaming service), and left a note for the author saying that the URL for service was returning "Access denied" for me. They have now added a second streaming source to each entry as a reference. My question is - do these count as viable WP:RS? I'm thinking not, just as a spotify "page" for a song wouldn't count as a source. Thoughts? (And if this is in the wrong place, let me know and I'll ask at WP:RS/N. Cheers, Bastun 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am moving the chapters to draft already, the series already exist and having chapters without source is not neccesary. It's weird the editor kept on removing the tags too. I believe if the chapters not nominated for deletion, then dratifying them will be better Tesleemah (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The second one’s source gave me a pop-up that my iPhone was hacked. Obviously not, and if I clicked on it I might have gotten hacked. Not an RS… UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Bastun 11:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Bug: Review messages with a vertical bar in them get cut off when sent to the user

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T382861

I reviewed a page and left a message using the Page Curation tool. When it was added to the article's talk page, it worked correctly, but when it was sent to the user's talk page, it got cut off in the middle. My guess is that the vertical bar character somehow confused the program, so it failed to send the rest of the message to the user. – numbermaniac 13:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

NPPHOUR, A1, and A3

WP:NPPHOUR says that we should wait at least one hour before marking a page for deletion unless there are serious content problems. However, WP:A1 and WP:A3 have a shorter delay; namely, 10 minutes. Which one should take priority in the setting of seemingly A1/A3-eligible pages? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

10 minutes is the baseline policy requirement. The one-hour standard is more along the lines of informal guidance for reviewers; it doesn't have the same level of community consensus behind it, and anecdotally I'd say it's pretty often not followed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The ten minutes is also just guidance (from the footnote to A1 and A3: there is no set time requirement, a ten-minute delay before tagging under this criterion is suggested as good practice). Use your judgement: the underlying message of both rules is to assess whether the creator could still be working on the article, and give them time to do so, before deleting it. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. What I should have said is that the ten-minute suggestion is somewhat more widely accepted than NPPHOUR, which is a fairly recent addition. (But judging from the deletion log, many people don't follow either.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree regarding the respective levels of consensus. WP:NPPHOUR evolved from a "15 minute rule" that was added to NPP's guidelines in 2009, and before that general advice to patrol "from the bottom" of the log rather than brand new pages which has been there from the beginning. It was increased successively to the current hour following (IIRC unanimous) consensus in talk page discussions. I would say there is broad and long-standing community consensus that it should be followed, at least. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, unanimous consensus on a subpage most people don't watch. NPP can give guidance, but ultimately this is a deletion policy issue, and so far the community hasn't wanted to make changes on that front. At any rate, it's a philosophical question as long as no one follows the guidance; 9 of the last 10 A7s in the log were tagged within an hour, for example. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
To add, I actually do think waiting an hour is generally good advice. I just think it's worth being clear that it's not an idea that's gotten very much traction in practice. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Errors (tpyos) in the act of disambiguation

Just wanted to post a thing here. Not necessarily a "long discussion", or even if this is in the right location, but still something to get some perspective feedback on from New Page Reviewers who might see these in the queue. How do reviewers treat typos in redirects? I'm happy to patrol typoes in words that are likely to have typoes. But that's not really the focus of this section. The main reason that I came here was to ask "do you all treat typoes in a topic equally with typoes that are in a disambiguator?"

I'm probably going to ramble here but hopefully you all see the vision.

Because I think there's a major difference, generally speaking. I think that typoes in a topic are generally fine. But typoes in a parenthetical disambiguator I can't find a reason why that would ever be likely or okay. The parenthetical disambiguator is not a topic. It is something that Misplaced Pages adds to a title to give it a unique location in the encyclopedia. By all accounts in the MOS, is a technical entity. Because every page must have a unique title, a parenthesized term is never going to be the "topic". Like lets say there's a redirect titled Apple (fruit). Lets say that the two words were equally easy to spell, and equally plausible to misspell. If we were to compare the helpfulness of the two following redirects, I think that Aplpe (fruit) is more helpful of a redirect than Apple (friut). Misspellings in the topic, well, that's just always going to happen probably. It's something readers want to learn about. Typoes in the disambiguator are not likely. Disambiguators are a technical addition to pages and wouldn't be on a printed encyclopedia if it could be avoided. The topic is "apple", not "apple (fruit)". We should accommodate some likely typoes for "apple" if we really wanted but probably not because in this case "apple" is really easy to spell. Typoes on banana are a bit more likely and those can and should definitely be accommodated. But not typoes in the technical addition that Misplaced Pages requires is used to disambiguate pages.

I think there's one exception, and that is capitalized disambiguators. I think that Apple (fruit) and Apple (Fruit) are equally likely. My unpopular opinion is that I don't think two of these are useful, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's likely. That's a whole can of worms that I'd like to leave exempt from the discussion of typoes in disambiguators. Because I'm struggling to think of a single misspelled word in a disambiguator that can be helpful. Various disambiguators can be useful, such as Apple (food) if we really wanted it. But not misspelling the technical addition that Misplaced Pages requires we use to disambiguate different topics. Thoughts on this mindset? What do you all do, and do you patrol all typoes equally? Utopes (talk / cont) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Unreviewed page

Is there a way to check which articles are placed into New pages feed the longest? A single page from 2017 days ago does not seem to be reviewed in any way and it was not created on that day. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirects that have been converted to articles are automatically added to the New Pages feed. Most of the "oldest" articles in the feed would be of this kind. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Sort by oldest, then scroll backwards until you start seeing a bunch of unreviewed articles from the same month in 2024. That's the "real" back of the queue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I already edited said page. Just had to limit newest page to 2017 days ago. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
You can also set your "oldest" boundary date to exclude the very old ones that are always there as the result of redirect wars and/or vandalism. I and others have gotten almost all of January and February 2024 knocked out as part of the backlog drive (lot of AfD material left there) so I welcome fellow patrollers to join me in March 2024 :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Deal me in for a March sprint or next one. I couldn't do the January for various work reasons. scope_creep 08:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
@Scope creep: We're currently on a fourth month cycle for backlog drives, so May is our next expected drive. Ideally we'd prefer only two a year, but we're doing what we can to keep the backlog under 10k. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Very low redirects

Hello. I'm Ampil. The backlog of unreviewed redirects is very low. 12 redirects are unreviewed. Please see Special:NewPagesFeed.

  • July 2024. 30,000 redirects unreviewed.
  • January 2025. 12 redirects unreviewed.

Thanks. ~🌀 Ampil 07:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely due to our current backlog drive. Woohoo! –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe the last time the backlog was cleared entirely was the 2023 May backlog drive, so I'm grateful to see us get it cleared out again.
Now we just need some extra focus on the backlog of articles, which is currently far too large at ~12,500 more than halfway through the drive. We started at 16,260 unreviewed articles, and the change in that backlog is -3,775 (-23.22%), so I'd love to see some of our reviewers shift their focus there now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
We've hit zero a few times; I tried to get a screenshot but can't find it now, so I guess we'll have to do it again for the historical record :). Also, I just realized there's a backlog drive, gotta go sign up and hope it counts retrospectively. Rusalkii (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: It does indeed count retroactively! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Checking for fictitious references

I keep seeing articles get patrolled while having several fictitious references. Please make sure to click on every URL/ISBN/DOI that a new article cites – if you find multiple 404s, the article is likely AI-generated. If you see other AI indicators (e.g. **Markdown bold** or (https://example.org)), the article should be draftified or tagged with {{AI-generated}}. See WikiProject AI Cleanup for more advice/help. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If not already mentioned, can this disclaimer of sorts be included in NPP guidelines and instructions? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Might be too much detail for WP:NPP, but would be great for an essay such as Misplaced Pages:How to spot AI-generated text or something. But then again, that'd have to be counterbalanced with divulging too much information on this topic, the same way that we wouldn't want to necessarily make a list of tells for WP:UPE editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Slightly offtopick of fictuous refs, can completely AI generated looking articles be draftified before 1 hour. NPPHOUR exists as a chance for the author to improve the article, but entire AI articles can barely be improved. Of course the 10 min minimum can stay though ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there a common maintenance tag that can be added for when we see fictitious references? They will likely increase, so some clear tag or verbiage may help. It may already exist, though I have not seen it. FULBERT (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I've seen a couple of these fictitious references as well. I thought it was just one instance. That is a pain. I was really puzzled the first time around. It was bizarre. At the moment I'm servicing the {{Category:Articles containing suspected AI-generated texts}} cat. Sub-cat on that maybe. I was suprised it doesn't take too long to learn to spot the stuff. It seems to be a particular way of writing, well, for the individual. You will spot it. Don't be afraid to remove it once you recognise it. Quality is what we are looking for. scope_creep 08:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There is in fact {{AI-generated source}}, and reviewers may find other useful resources at AI cleanup. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Useful info, thanks for sharing. Bastun 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers: Difference between revisions Add topic