Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.
I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
Firstly, I highly appreciate and thank your excellent and hard work in reviewing PERM/NPP, which is often backlogged for weeks. On my watchlist I saw this request. I previously waffled between whether I should comment but decided not to. I will note that my direct interactions with that editor have been positive. Their AfD match rate is only <60%, which I don't know how it's stellar. In the past they've frequently removed BLPPRODs incorrectly (User talk:Ortizesp#BLPPROD notice), but other editors posted the warnings before I noticed these, and I also recalled this but decided not to comment then as the AfD in question was contentious. I am not questioning your overall judgement, but given your high standards with granting NPP/PERM, I am slightly surprised that you granted a full perm and recommended them to RfA. Again, I understand that PERM is a highly difficult and time-consuming area IMO as a non-admin and I highly respect and commend your work there, and this isn't a criticism or anything.
Also, thanks for expanding the history section on WP:NPP- maybe they could go in a separate page instead of being in the tutorial, but these info on the older history very interesting to me. Thanks. VickKiang(talk) 22:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, yes, I was obviously feeling generous then. I'll make sure to keep an eye on their reviewing for the time being. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please could you restore this article per your offer at the AFD? There seem to be a fair few book and article coverages with reasonable suggestion that GNG is met. The OP presented no evidence at all, plus this was a unanimous keep last time it was nominated in 2006, so I don't think this was the correct outcome. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think a keep outcome 17 years ago—when as you know expectations were rather different at AfD—should inoculate an article from soft deletion indefinitely. But yes, it's a soft deletion so I've no problem at all restoring it. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you review your granting of AfC reviewer perms to this editor, please. The three reviews of academics I've checked are completely wrong. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have said I will avoid reviewing academics until I understand the guidelines of them better, and also that I was hesitant to accept those ones because the submitter was being paid to write them. -- NotCharizard🗨 03:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Notcharizard: Topics covered by SNGs are tricky. I think it's a good idea not to review articles or drafts in those areas until you're comfortable with the relevant guideline. – Joe (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
I wanted to let you know why I reverted 11 edits at Genocides in history (before World War I). These edits were made by a block-evadinglong-term abuser known as the Bad copyediting IP. For more information see User:Nythar/User tracking#Bad copyediting IP. I normally revert their edits on sight, and, as can be seen in the diffs you provided, they have a habit of adding excessive numbers wikilinks, in some cases adding dozens of irrelevant "see also" links. Their block evasion is a major factor behind my reverts, and their copyediting, more often than not, negatively affects articles. I also don't want to spend my time salvaging their constructive edits (which are rare) from a sea of unconstructive ones. I don't often report them at AIV because very few (if any) admins are aware of their editing habits, and to have them successfully blocked I need to present a large amount of evidence in every report. Perhaps in the future I'll state the reason I'm reverting their edits in my edit summaries instead of just using rollback. Regards, Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nythar: Thanks for the explanation. I think an edit summary would be useful in future. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I thought I'd take the time to respond to this comment since you are an experienced editor. Usually it's the managers of the garage bands complaining about articles being declined :) If you look at the decline notice, it does not state that the "entire ancient language" is not notable, but rather that "this draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". To do so, sources are required to be:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
independent of the subject
The single source provided in the submission I declined (not rejected, which means that the topic is deemed not suitable for Wikipedia at all, with no opportunity to resubmit) in no way meets these requirements. It's misunderstanding the role of volunteer AfC reviewers to expect them to be experts in everything they review. Much as I would like to be knowledgeable in ancient languages, botany, astronomy, crypto entrepreneurs, self-published literature as well as garage bands etc., all I am evaluating is whether the existing references meet the notability guidelines. If the language in question is really notable, and not, for example, a hoax, a maverick researcher's non-notable opinion, then there will be multiple independent sources written about that. It is not for the reviewer to track down these sources, but for those contributing to the draft to do so.
I note that you are have an interest in Women in Red. I focus on reviews in that area as well. The AfC backlog is huge, and submissions can languish for many months before being reviewed, by which time the contributors may have lost motivation. A quick decline is a positive, and provides contributors an opportunity to quickly make the required changes to an improperly-sourced submission.
You are welcome to explore more at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. I know you're involved in other areas, but also you're welcome to get involved if you wish - we are under-resourced and would value assistance. While the volume of drivel flung at us can be overwhelming, it's an opportunity to help get notable topics approved, and attract new contributors. Greenman (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Greenman. I've been an AfC reviewer for about 12 years, but thanks for the info. – Joe (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Joe, you recently gave the new page reviewer right to Ortizesp. I recently tried unsuccessfully to chat to this editor about a non-reliable source they had used and noticed that their talk page contained numerous AfD notifications. Yesterday, they added a copyrighted image to an article, which was promptly deleted. I know they've been around the block, but these things suggest that they shouldn't be a new page reviewer. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey mate, the single "non-reliable" source is a non-issue. I'm on vacation and would just edit it out, but looking at the "About Us" page on the publication, I think its reliable enough for a passing reference. Also the AFDs are because NFOOTY got deprecated this year, so lots of articles that were once deemed noteable now aren't. I've created thousands of other pages that haven't been deleted. Cheers.Ortizesp (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Modussiccandi. When I review PERM requests I'm not overly concerned by deletion nominations, since those don't indicate the user has made a mistake in assessing the notability of a topic, only that someone else thinks they might have. I look for what the outcome of the AfD was, and XTools shows that a miniscule proportion of Ortizesp's 4,251 created pages have been deleted. That's actually quite impressive given the community's recent decision to tighten standards for biographies football players, mentioned by Ortizesp above.
I'm also not really convinced that a dispute over the reliability of a single source, or a deletion on Commons, is the kind of thing that would usually prompt us to reconsider a user's perms. But of course just because I assigned Ortizesp NPR it doesn't mean I'm the arbiter of whether he keeps it; if you have specific reviewing actions you're concerned about, you might try WP:XRV, otherwise there's ANI for seeking the removal of perms. – Joe (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough; I am happy to concede the point about the AfDs! The image deletion is an absolute no brainer to me and I think reviewers ought to have a firm handle on that sort of thing. It's hardly encouraging to find such signs of careless editing in a reviewer at first glance. I'll let the matter rest for the time being. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image wasn't tagged for copvio when I added it. I don't upload the images, or judge their content i just add them as they show up on commons.12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Ortizesp (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an admin, you're doing an excellent job on New page patrol and WP:PERM/NPP. Keep up the good work, and don't forget to take care of yourself, mate. Cheers! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 18,772 last month to 18,816 on 29 September 2023). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 215 is ahead of WP:GM who have 91. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 92 while WP:GM has 65 out of a total number of 4,865 articles.
Currently we have seventy five Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
The drop in the article count last month was caused by a BOT converting the assesments over for pages that had become redirects. Please remember that when you convert an existing article into a redirect to change the class rating to |class=Redir and remove the importance rating from the project banner on the talk page.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2023 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered October 2023 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
They say that they understand which pages that qualify for deletion and which are fine for wikipedia, yet they nominated a state highway article for deletion when WP:GEOROAD exists. Not sure giving them autopatrolled was the right call. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 15:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]