Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions
Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
14025 ↑49
Oldest article
2 years old
Redirects
22985
Oldest redirect
3 months old
Article reviews
1409
Redirect reviews
2196
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑552 since last week)
  • There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog[edit]

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of March 24, 2024

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

'Mark this page as reviewed'[edit]

Would it be possible to have an "Also mark as reviewed" checkbox added to the bottom of the "Mark this page as reviewed" popup in the Page Curation tool? I've lost track of the number of times I've written a message to a page creator and hit "Mark as reviewed" instead of "Send message", which, yes, marks the page as reviewed, but loses the message I've written. Other popups from the tool have such a popup. To clarify, there are two options when you click on the button - mark as reviewed, or send a message; you can't do both, even though other such buttons have the dual functionality. (Yes, this is "me" problem, but I'd hazard a guess that I'm not alone!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if we didn't have the flyout auto-close when clicking a button? You'd have to click both "mark as reviewed" and "send message", but you wouldn't lose your message due to the flyout closing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work just as well. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to copy what we have on the tagging flyout: Add a checkbox saying "Also mark as reviewed" next to the "Send message" button. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britfilm[edit]

Not going to PERM because I've never gone before but Britfilm has 600 articles in the past year (~80 in the queue right now) and I am not seeing any deletion controversies. Articles are not massive but they're using proper sources and I don't see what NPRs can do except marking them reviewed. Why go through the motions? Can't y'all just give them autopatrolled? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their talk page shows evidence of multiple articles being moved back to draft space, not to mention multiple nominations for deletion. I don't think they have a sufficient success record for autopatrolled. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything recent, but it's a messy talk page. Not sure how tough the autopatrolled requirements are nowadays. I doubt autopatrolled editors have a 100% non-deletion record. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would recommend posting this at WP:PERM/AP. Each perm has admins who are comfortable processing that type of perm request, and that is the page they watch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, as I said, don't feel ready cos never done that. But if I got this one passed, and if they went on to create 600 more articles this year, I would have had a bigger impact than all the reviews I could do in a year. That's why I am trying to figure it out. I know PERM admins watch this page. So, just give me feedback on what you look for and find comfortable approving, so I can keep an eye out for it. By email, if not here. Please! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not efficient to request it here. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Britfilm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, but okay, I guess. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who recommended me?[edit]

Hello to whomever makes comments on this talk page! I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. Just curious who did so and why because, after reviewing the guidelines for granting user rights, I'm not sure if I am the right type of editor for working on this project. I'm more than willing to help considering the backlog, but within the range of what is explicitly acceptable by content policies, I tend to be an inclusionist. On the other hand, participating in this would help me gain a better understanding of what content in practice is precluded by Wikipedia content policy where the policies do not explicitly preclude it in detail. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @CommonKnowledgeCreator and thank you for asking. These messages are automatically sent to people that meet a specific set of requirements like recent edits and no recent blocks. Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here, many of us share that same ideology and it shouldn't be something stopping you from requesting the right. I've been reviewing for 3 months or so and have enjoyed my time - reviewing is something you indeed get used to in the long run and it has helped me understand content policy better and write better content. There's also a program called WP:NPPS which you might consider. I'd encourage you to apply, though! NotAGenious (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionism certainly isn't a bad thing here. Agreed. Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. Our judgment calls need to align with typical, average community consensus, rather than an inclusionist instinct.
If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable, you can always focus on easy accepts. WP:NPPEASY. There are plenty of those. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although if you know you are an inclusionist, please be careful not to be too lenient when approving things. ... If nominating things for deletion is uncomfortable... I wouldn't say that I'd find nominating articles for deletion to be uncomfortable. I've now reviewed all of the "Essential further reading" essays and policy pages at WP:NPPS. Where content is clearly violative of policy, I'm completely willing to delete it and to do so proactively. I guess my only complaint over years of editing and getting into disputes with other editors from time to time is that I sometimes feel that long-time editors sometimes impose reverts to content that the policies don't explicitly preclude and are in a sense enforcing policy rules that doesn't don't exist. But with that qualification aside, I've come to the conclusion that I am willing to apply since this appears to be important work in furtherance of the project and valued by the community. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review of Drafts[edit]

At Miscellany for Deletion we sometimes see nominations of drafts that have been nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. These are kept, citing an essay that has a slightly inaccurate title but is otherwise entirely correct, Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity at MFD. They are reviewed for notability and sanity when they are submitted to Articles for Creation. These nominations are almost always almost certainly good-faith efforts by reviewers who are trying to help the review process by reviewing drafts, and applying the same criteria as they would apply to articles. So my question is whether clear advice is needed to reviewers that it isn't necessary to review drafts for notability, and that their effort might be better spent in reviewing articles that have not yet been reviewed. I understand that drafts are reviewed, but they should be reviewed by reviewers who understand that they are primarily checking for attack pages and other BLP violations that should be tagged for G10. Drafts are, when necessary, tagged for any of the General speedy deletion criteria, but mostly unsubmitted drafts can be left alone except by their authors. Drafts are tagged for G11 if they are advertising, but that can be done if and when they are submitted for review. Since drafts are not indexed, most kinds of useless drafts or stupid drafts can be ignored.

I haven't recently read the instructions for new reviewers, so maybe they are clear enough. What I do see is that drafts are sometimes nominated for deletion for a lack of notability. My concern isn't so much about the waste of the time of the editors at MFD, as much as the time that is apparently being spent by a few reviewers checking drafts for notability, when they could usefully be checking new articles for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, do you have any examples? NPRs should be experienced enough not to do that. It could be AFC reviewers or new editors who are trying to gain experience to later apply for AFC/NPP. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usedtobecool - AFC reviewers also should be experienced enough not to do that, and AFC reviewers would also decline or reject the draft, whether or not they also incorrectly tagged it for MFD. The MFDs in question did not also involve declining or rejecting the draft. Maybe they are new reviewers trying to gain experience. How do I check whether they are NPP reviewers? If they are inexperienced editors without review permissions, should we discourage them, and how? I think that reviewing new drafts and tagging one or more of them for MFD does more harm than good. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, yes, ideally, AFC reviewers should also be experienced enough not to do that, but it would not be a problem for this board. Same with the non-hatted draftspace patrollers. Editors need to gain experience somehow, and in any area, the most effective way to do that, has always been to make mistakes. Some won't repeat once told and go on to become valuable addition to the corps, some that don't listen will have to be removed from the area, as with everywhere else. You'd check for NPP perm here: [1]. For AFC, you'd have to check whether they're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usedtobecool - As a senior AFC reviewer, I am reasonably certain that the editor was not an AFC reviewer. The draft was not on any of the queues that AFC reviewers rely on. I have never seen an editor whom I knew to be an AFC reviewer nominate a draft for deletion that had not been submitted for review. I have often seen AFC reviewers nominate drafts that were tendentiously resubmitted for deletion, but that is not the situation here. So we are in agreement that this was a new editor seeking review experience before being given a permission. So the question, as you note, is whether they take the advice to stop nominating drafts for deletion for lack of notability, which is not a reason to delete drafts. Drafts are occasionally nominated for deletion,and are deleted, as hoaxes or as BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, new editors inevitably make a couple of wrong CSD and prod noms too, they're also seen at AFDs, and in many ANEW and ANI reports, even DRVs, even arbitration requests. It would actually be surprising if somehow MFD were the exception. I would suggest that their nomination could be reverted on the spot instead of being entertained for a whole week. That could be the best way to address disruption to MFD without asking them to stop patrolling draftspace altogether, where they may gain valuable experience with CSDs, copypatrol, username patrol, etc. Whether reverting at MFD could be experimented as a bold action or you'd need to first bring up the issue and get a tentative consensus for it, you'd know better. Best — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. your original concern was more with patroller time than MFD time. In that case, just what you said, yup. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usedtobecool - Yes, my concern was with new patroller time, not with MFD time. It doesn't take the MFD reviewers long to write Keep and explain about drafts. Reverting an MFD isn't feasible, just as reverting an AFD isn't feasible, because MFD causes a lot of things to be done, including generation of the MFD discussion page (which is the equivalent of an AFD discussion page). An MFD can be Speedy Kept, just as an AFD can, but it isn't clear to me whether either SK1 or SK3 apply. But, as you note, the real issue is new patroller time, and they will learn from the comments of the MFD participants. If the good-faith erroneous MFD nominations are not coming from NPP editors, then experience is the only teacher. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPR-related BRFA[edit]

I have an open BRFA to replace EranBot's task of reporting potential copyright issues from CopyPatrol to PageTriage (NewPagesFeed) used by NPR at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CopyPatrolBot. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next backlog drive[edit]

Howdy folks.

Looking at the article backlog graph, I think we need to have 3–4 article only backlog drives a year to maintain our current backlog levels and prevent major backlog growth. 4 backlog drives a year is too many for burnout reasons. So I think we should consider 3 backlog drives a year that focus on articles only (no redirects). That's a cadence of one every 4 months. Our last one was in January, so that would mean we should look into doing another backlog drive in May.

Thoughts on this? Shall we move forward, or do we need to adjust the details? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novem and I have been discussing this and I'm comfortable running 3 drives a year. We agree that the focus should be on articles over redirects. With that said, I would prefer to have at least one of the drives be mixed, with a lower weight provided to redirects (.2 pts each) than our last mixed drive (0.25). Hey man im josh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the backlog seems to be a recurring problem, I was wondering if maybe it'd be easier to organize a monthly/quarterly recognition barnstar based off database reports instead of constantly organizing backlog drives? That way people are still being recognized on a regular basis for their hard work keeping the backlog down (and it's more frequent than the yearly awards). It also encourages people to do what they can, when they can, somewhat frequently. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Recognition for consistent reviewing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, sending out a batch of barnstars for consistent reviewing has never resulted in a 6,000 article drop in the backlog graph like a backlog drive does. I still like sending out barnstars since it probably creates some motivation and staves off burnout a little, but it does not seem to be in the same league as backlog drives. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Michelet work disamibguation[edit]

Hello, how would one disambiguate Histoire de France? Using the original French title doesn't seem correct for the English WP, History of France (Jules Michelet)? IgelRM (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with this topic, but we should probably use the WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think is more commonly used, 'Histoire de France' or 'History of France' (Jules Michelet)? – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be disambiguated? There seems to be no other article at present with this title. Are you concerned that it might be confused with History of France? If so, a hatnote might be useful: {{about |the book|the history of France|History of France}} or similar? PamD 14:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps a redirect to Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece (and possibly renaming that section to clarify that it's about Histoire de France) would be a better solution? PamD 14:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there's far more information at Jules_Michelet#Masterpiece than in the stub. --John B123 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: @PamD: So redirect for now and maybe draft this if the creator wants to continue working on it? IgelRM (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth draftifying - the content will still be there in the history if this is just turned into a redirect. PamD 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And then, perhaps, add the same hatnote as suggested above, to the top of the section (which I've renamed to the more informative Jules Michelet#Histoire de France, leaving an {{Anchor}} at the old section heading so that old links still work. PamD 11:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have redirected it and informed the creator. IgelRM (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) doesn't say so in so many words, I think it implies that the article about a book should have the original title of the book, if it is written in the latin alphabet, unless there's a good reason not to. There's nothing to suggest that the title should be translated, unless the book is better known in English-language sources by a translated title. In this case, the sources all talk about "Histoire de France", so that's the title of our article. PamD 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was indeed that it may be confusing if someone searches Wikipedia and expects History of France. DreamRimmer: For example, the translation by the British Library uses an English title (History of France. Translated by G. H. Smith). (Category:History of France also suggested that) I think the suggested hatnote is great (dunno if that is still disambiguation work). I assumed sufficient notability based on reviews around Jules Michelet. But the article is low effort even for a stub that I would like to draftify.
(Huh ignoring Salome (play), so generally a Latin name with many diacritics etc is fine but Japanese kanji are not.) IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latin letters, even with diacritics, can still be understood by anyone who reads English, which is not the case for Japanese. Also, the convention is to create a redirect without diacritics ({{R to diacritic}}) if the title contains them. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a side realization for me and not meant critical. What English foreign titles may be understandable seems rather subjective and depends on the reader's cultural knowledge (Kanji were not a great example but I imagine there are more intuitive script cases). IgelRM (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the hatnote I suggested above, and a couple of useful categories. PamD 08:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the intent of Template:R from miscapitalisation[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol[edit]

The article Auwalu Abdullahi Rano get Wikipedia notability but it was not appear in a searching Engine. Because Auwalu Abdullahi Rano was a Nigerian Businessman, oil tycoon, and public figure. Bamalli01 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bamalli01: A reviewer will get to the article in due time, please be patient. There is a backlog of other articles waiting to be reviewed, and we do not prioritize certain articles upon request. Please also note that new pages patrol is run by volunteers, as are most processes on Wikipedia. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]