Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help (video)
Page feed
Caution Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, 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 {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog edit

Page Curation not sending to RfD

The Page Curation tool reports 'unable to find target location' i.e. Redirects for Discussion, when sending redirects to RfD. Could somebody please stat a bug report at Bugzilla. Maybe Kaldari could address this issue directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Created a phab ticket for it. Thanks for the report. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I think I've fixed this. The fix should go out next week. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion systems are so complicated and quirky that the software that interacts with them is extremely fragile. For example, for Redirects for Discussion, it has to find the current log page (e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2), and then instead of just posting to the bottom or creating a new section like you do for any normal wiki page, you have to find the comment that says "<!-- Add new entries directly below this line. -->" and post the nomination directly under that. Unfortunately, someone changed the daily log generation script so that the comment says "<!-- Add new entries directly below this line. -->" instead of "<!-- Add new entries directly below this line -->". The period broke Page Curation! Is there any chance that we could introduce some sanity into this system so that it isn't so difficult for WMF software to interact with? Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Trout the person who changed the script. Why was it changed anyway? Thanks for fixing, Kaldari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talkcontribs) 01:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on Global Music Awards

I'm interested to know if anyone has any opinion on Global Music Awards. The article and the award do not smell right to me, and I'm wondering if it is promotional. The judging process appears to be dubious and self-perpetuating (the judges are largely past winners [1]), what its entry criteria are (it appears that you can enter it yourself, but may have to pay [2]), and the winners are apparently largely unknown apart from some recognizable names. Seems like a self-promotional award site to me. Hzh (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a pay to enter competition. As it says on their page "Global Music Awards opens doors. Our goal is to be your partner in your journey to the top. If you win our honors, our credibility may make it easier for you to lock-in bookings, be discovered by A&R executives and be signed by labels." Not enough secondary sources tishow it is notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It is odd, I shouldn't imagine someone like Esperanza Spalding would pay to enter the award herself, which makes me suspect they sometimes throw in a random artist to make it seems somehow legitimate. A candidate for deletion then? Hzh (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Hzh: Neither judges being past winners or entry fees or many recipients being unfamiliar to the general public are necessarily a problem, but there's multiple alarm bells going off here that suggest that not only are the awards not notable, but that they are primarily a form of PR. Nominated at AFD. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 15:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


When special:newpages says "xyz pages reviewed this week", does it mean last 7 days or calendar week? —usernamekiran(talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Automatic suppressredirect flag

Because so many of the articles we review are moved to draftspace leaving a redirect automatically tagged for CSD, I propose NPP automatically grant the right "suppressredirect". Thoughts? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to automatically grant every NPR with WP:PGM. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Not totally. Just that one flag. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is 50% of the flags granted to a PGM, and 99.9% of the reasons people request it. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
They are oddly protective of that right. Good luck with that proposal. Natureium (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Suppress Redirect flag can enable NPPers to swap page histories and do complicated moves, which can lead to gargantuan messes, if they are unaware of our RM guidelines, which ought to be often the case.Our PM grant rules are a lot stricter than that of NPR grant and trends show that PM is disbursed for the aforesaid purposes of easy draftification to only those long-standing editors who don't have a track record of disputed moves and/or can be certainly believed to stay away from RMs etc. (in case they are non-experienced).~ Winged BladesGodric 16:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing But an Infobox

Chips, cheese and gravy had been a redirect to Poutine. A user has (twice) removed this redirect. At the moment all that exists is an infobox (see this [3]). It seems like this user is still developing the page but for future reference would I review this as a blank page or treat it like it has content? Looking for some guidance about this article but also concept more generally in case I were to see it again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Barkeep49, personally I'd pass it by until it was at least 2 hours old. If it was a few hours old and still like this, I'd probably move it to draftspace and send a message to the creator thanking them for their work, and asking them to move it back to mainspace when the article is finished. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ling Dong

I've been trying without success to nominate this article for PROD via BLP notice board and on the article's head. It is a BLP with the only source being a link to the baidu search engine - i.e. it has no sources. I'm feeling like I'm getting a bit militant because I have started reverting people who remove the PROD notice without fixing the issue. Please advise. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It was removed by two different people. The next best thing is for you to start AfD if you believe the subject is not notable, or to find sources yourself if you believe otherwise. But constant reverting is never the good option. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I only reverted once so far. It's a BLP sitting there with no sources. it came up on NPP - The subject may or may not be notable. The text is all unverified. I can't make a search to verify any of it. Just trying to follow the book and maintain BLP standards. AFD is an optionEdaham (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Good tag, will watch the page. You're right, a generic image search link is not a "reference", nor is it anything other than a link. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi I just checked out the page and backed up the message left on Aspects' talk page by Edaham here User_talk:Aspects#Ling_Dong and then just by curiosity I clicked on the link again and this time it came back with a load of images of a casette tape written in chinois, this may be sufficient to support the statement that she released a casette tape if the name on the image of the tape is indeed Ling Dong. The trouble is that the link is not stable so often it defaults to the home search page. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thanks for taking the time to check. Aside from verifying notability, sources on BLPs need to verify what’s being said about the subject and withstand a greater degree of scrutiny than articles which aren’t about living persons. Unverified text (all of it in this case) can be challenged and removed. Since removing the unverified text would mean blanking the entire article, a more appropriate action would be prod, especially since the authors of the article have made no effort to provide adequate sourcing despite numerous notifications. Regarding the paltry source given, there’s not even verification that the person being talked about in the article and the assortment of photos from that search are the same. If this were AFC.... etc etc. I don’t need to spell this out. Edaham (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I understand if any source of any kind supports any statement in the article then a blp prod is not valid. As I said the statement that she released a cassette would be backed up by a photo of this cassette. I do not read Chinese so I don't know if what I saw said Ling Dong or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, yes that's also the way I understand it. What I couldn't fathom is how an image search constitutes a "source of any kind" :). I won't argue (again) about any decision which is made though. Thanks again for looking into it. Edaham (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

New Pages Feed improvements with Community Tech team

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH (WMF) and Kaldari at WMF. Now that ACTRIAL has become permanent, we're expecting a lot of traffic to shift from the NPR process to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

To help equip AfC reviewers to handle that traffic, the Community Tech team are going to be dedicating some bandwidth during May and June to improving that process. We began a good discussion about which improvements would be most impactful toward helping AfC get high quality drafts into the main namespace quickly, and we've settled on a plan. I'm posting here because we think that the planned work will also benefit the NPR process, and I want to make sure anyone interested will be able to weigh in.

Tagging Kudpung, Insertcleverphrasehere, Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Vexations, and Rentier, who all participated in that discussion (thank you!), in case they want to chime in here.

Please check out the project page for the details. In brief, the idea is that AfC does not currently have an efficient way to prioritize drafts for review, and the New Pages Feed is an existing interface that could help. The plan is:

  • New Pages Feed will be extended to include AfC drafts as a new list of pages for review, in addition to the existing "Article" and "User" pages that are currently available.
  • The feed will be enhanced to allow prioritization by quality and copyvio scores for all namespaces in the interface.
  • These new capabilities will be available to both the AfC and NPP reviewers.

Though we have limited bandwidth over the next several weeks to work on this project, we definitely want to get this as right as possible in concert with the AfC and NPR communities. I'm going to be posting regular updates on that project page, including mockups of different ways that the changes could be implemented so that we can get thoughts and reactions from reviewers. It's definitely going to be critical to get feedback from this group on how much impact (hopefully positive) the changes will have on the usage of the New Pages Feed.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So the feed will include things in article space and draft space? Will the drafts be submitted, or are we supposed to figure out if the user is done with them? And AfC requires people to explicitly join and be an active reviewer. What does this mean for new page reviewers going through the feed? It sounds like you're trying to combine the two into one process. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Natureium: thanks for the questions. This effort is definitely not about combining them into one process, though I know there has been conversation in the two communities about whether or not that would be a good idea. This is about leveraging the existing New Pages Feed interface to also be helpful for the separate AfC process. To that end, the plan is to allow the New Pages Feed to distinguish between the Article, User, and Draft namespaces. And then within the Draft namespace, the reviewer will be able to choose the subset of drafts that are submitted and awaiting review (because drafts can also be submitted and declined, waiting for the author to improve them before resubmitting). So to be clear, we don't plan to make it possible to list both Articles and Drafts together in the feed at the same time.
AfC does require people to explicitly join and be approved to be able to use the AFCH script. We don't plan to change anything about that workflow. Once selecting a draft for review from the New Pages Feed, an AfC reviewer would be on that draft's page and use the AFCH script as usual.
NPR reviewers will be able to do their work the same way they always have within the Article namespace, but will also be able to sort and filter by quality and copyvio scores in the New Pages Feed if they wish. We think this will help reviewers either find the most problematic articles first for deletion, or prioritize the best articles first for approval. Does that sound like it will be useful?
Does this answer your questions? What are your thoughts on this plan?
-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes very helpful. There are actually three kinds of Drafts that should be sortable 1. Submitted to AfC awaiting review. 2. Declined by AfC (might be submitted again) 3. Not submitted to AfC (may not even be tagged). Group 3 is worth looking at for attack, Spam and other problematic pages as well as useful pages that could be promoted since some people seem to think Drafts magically move to mainspace on their own. All types of Drafts could benefit from patrolling. Legacypac (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: thanks for the clarity. I've passed this along to the software engineers who are currently planning out the work, and we'll be discussing whether it will be feasible to enable filtering to all three of those kinds of drafts. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a software engineer but it seems easier to include all of Draftspace with a filter for AfC Submitted tags than to exclude a block of untagged pages. All Drafts are temporary.

1. Draft created 2. Draft MAY be submitted AfC 2.a Draft may be accepted and becomes a redirect to mainspace 2 b Draft is declined and may be resubmitted or not 3. A patroller notices the Draft and seeks deletion (afc or not) OR 4. The creator or someone else moves it to mainspace and title becomes a redirect or it is simply redirected without a move (topic exists) 5. Draft reaches 6 months unedited and gets considered for WP:G13

(Sorry hard to draw a flowchart with words)

The entire universe of Drafts (other than redirects) is therefore finite and somewhat stable in total numbers. It is (currently poorly) managed as a backlog of unreviewed pages. Adding Drafts to Page Curation Tool will greatly assist in helping to manage all unreviewed pages. Patrolers may choose to improve pages they encounter even if they are not ready to move them to mainspace yet. Arguably marking "Reviewed" would usually main moving it to mainspace. Otherwise sooner or later the page will need to be tagged for deletion or redirected and does not need to be "reviewed". Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Deletion of drafts

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Deletion_of_drafts about the deletion of drafts that are repeatedly submitted without improvement to AfC. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Backlog still growing

Note that despite the fact that ACTRIAL has now become permanent the backlog is still growing and currently approaching 5K articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There are a ton of almost identical pages about Indian politicians that all meet notabilty that have just been created and also loads of music redirects that can be dealt with really quickly. I managed to about 100 today just by selecting the editors that created these pages. Of cource this doesn't add to my edit count by I'm not in it for the glory...well maybe just a little bit. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Now 5025.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying non-english

Is it appropriate to move articles that were created in other languages to draft? They clearly aren't ready to be an article, in that they are in the english wikipedia and aren't english. I don't have a specific article in mind, I'm just wondering about the policy of this. Natureium (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there are instructions here WP:A2 that may help. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. If you can't read the language, do a quick Google translation to find out what it's about.
  2. Tag for CSD if appropriate.
  3. Otherwise:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's what I've done in the past, google to try to figure out notability, and add a translation tag. I just didn't know if moving to draft was appropriate. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Geographic location w/o any sources

How might you patrol a geographic location like Kalyvia_Sochas that has no sources? --JustBerry (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It exists on the map, per the external sources links. Therefore is verifiable. Verifiability, rather than notability, is often the key thing to make sure is there when it comes to geographic location pages like villages. In particular, check out Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Geographic_regions,_areas_and_places. In this case Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Could still use some refs, so the tag is appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for the reply. I was aware of Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Geographic_regions,_areas_and_places (I probably should have mentioned that). The tag is certainly appropriate too. I guess the answer to the question would be to mark it as patrolled after checking notability and tagging appropriately. --JustBerry (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would mark as unref and send the creator a message saying 'Please add your references. External links just means suggestions for further reading. We really need to know what your sources were so we know the information is accurate. Could you please add them clearly, preferably WP:INLINECITED?' On the whole, people do respond by adding them. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

CoI editor

How does it come about that editor Azerbanjo, who on May 9th created the new article Bionix Radiation Therapy, has only two actions in their contribution history whereas looking at the editor's talk page it is apparent they have made other contributions? I see I asked them to disclose whether they had a conflict of interest a month ago and they have not done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Because as non-admin we can't see any edits done to deleted pages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It has implications for new page reviewers. It would be much more helpful if non-admins were able to see that contributions had been made even if they could not view the details. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Well xtools 1, 2 show us some of the info of deleted contribs. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I've wished we were able to see deleted contribs. Now if only there were some way to tell if a deleted article recreation is the same as it was when deleted... Natureium (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

General sanctions proposal for cyrptocurrencies

A proposal for the community to impose General Sanctions on cyrptocurrencies and blockchain has been posted and might be of interest to New Page Reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

21st May Backlog Update

NPP backlog, number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Green is less than 30 days old, orange is between 30 and 90 days old. Red arrow indicates the 90 day index point.

The backlog is currently at 4800 articles and dates back to very early March. We have been generally keeping the numbers steady, but the start of ACREQ has not resulted in an appreciable reduction of the backlog as hoped (due to a drop in reviewing activity following ACREQ). I can't fault anyone for taking a well deserved break, as I myself have also been on an extended wikibreak, but special thanks go to those that have continued chipping away at the coal face. Thank you!

We have only about two weeks buffer from the Index Point at present and the shape of the backlog is also a little less healthy than it was in my last update: there is a pretty big bulge around the middle of March that is headed our way, so we need to be prepared to make sure that we can deal with it and ensure that it doesn't push past the index point. Review from the back if you can, our long term target is still to keep the backlog below 30 days, so we still have a long way to go. Cheers all and keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Any way to get the index point extended from 90 to 120 days? cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We could ask, but likely wouldn't happen, and not really needed right now since we are under control. I don't really consider us backlogged as we're before the 90 day point. Yes, there are pages to review, but we are able to have quality control on every page before it hits Google. That's the most important thing. It'd be nice to get it into Google before 90 days, but that's less important than making sure it's of sufficient quality for Google Face-smile.svg TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: There is no reason why the backlog needs to be more than 30 days. 5,000 articles in the backlog is also still unacceptably high IMO, especially when we can get bulges in the graph like the one above that can make it difficult for us to deal with when they approach the Index Point. When we had a month buffer it was a lot better, but we have slowly been losing ground since then as the backlog has spread out. It isn't as high at the front any more, due to less articles coming in, but it has spread out toward the tail a lot more, which is the opposite of what we want. We should be targeting a 30 day max backlog, and <2000 I think. We are still in a situation where half of all reviews are done by the top few 10% of reviewers, and if any of them decides to quit, we could be in real trouble again. That's how the backlog spiraled out of control last time, and I'd like so have a decent buffer so that we can ensure that it doesn't happen again. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA