Former talk page archives

/Header /School /Newsletter /Awards Backlog drives Page Curation/Suggested improvement

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is there a NPP IRC channel? I'm not going to be using Discord anymore. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 08:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear you won't be using Discord anymore. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we really enjoyed having you @Deauthorized. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still plan on applying for NPP rights and participating in the backlog drive so don't worry. I was deeply unhappy with discord as a whole for a very long time. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to hear that you're still interest in NPP @Deauthorized. I hope that you'll apply soon because I do think you have a solid grasp of things, as well as an understanding of what to avoid. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be one. But, i don't know how active it is. I've just joined it now, and will get back to you about its activity level. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP IRC channel is inactive, and I'd like to discourage folks from using it since there are advantages to centralizing us all on one chat client. One chat server with high activity is better than two chat servers with mediocre activity, imo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Network effect. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NPP IRC channel is inactive. Yup, zero activity during the day that I joined. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’re thinking about possibly moving the planned October backlog drive to September because of the alarming rate of backlog growth. I’m afraid that if we wait till October that it will be too high, too late. (https://npptech.toolforge.org/npp/chart.php?type=articles) What are everyone’s thoughts on the move? (Courtesy ping @Zippybonzo @DreamRimmer @Novem Linguae) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to move at this point, because there won't be enough time to send the messages and allow people to join. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's not really enough time now to move it to September. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that there should be no change in time. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 01:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I oppose the mention of coordinator changes in the newsletter unless it refers to the lead coordinator(s) changing. I don't see how it being included helps the NPP readers. I'm also not sure how the newsletter has been "restructured", aside from moving the newsletter archives from the coordination page to its own dedicated archive page, so I think it would be useful to clear that up or remove it from the draft. This also isn't the first newsletter that has been sent since MB's departure so I don't think mentioning that is relevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft script was also mentioned in the January newsletter. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess we can remove the paragraph, if no one else sees a need for it. The usage of Evad's script is reducing a lot (92 this month v/s 731 in May). I think the few holdouts are folks who like that version better, and admins who don't want to use a non-admin's userscript. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was unnecessary. You did a commendable job by removing it. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 13:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some tool we can use to see how many pages we've reviewed? I know at least in AfD, someone has created a wikitool where I can put in my username and it shows how many AfD's I've participated in, and sorts them as deleted, keep etc based on the outcome of the discussion... Does such a wikitool exist for NPP? Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can adapt this useful query by Novem Linguae: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/74414. Just press 'fork', replace his user name with yours in the 'SQL' box, then 'submit query'. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe xtools also keeps track of the pages you review. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "patrol" label in XTools is a decent approximation and often the quickest way to check, but be advised it can often be inaccurate, because patrol and review are technically different. WP:NPP#Patrol versus review. In my case, patrol under-counts. Also, if you are trying to count all of a user's patrolling experience, neither XTools nor the above Quarry query count CSD taggings, since the patroller never hits the "mark as reviewed" button for those, but CSD taggings are often done in the course of NPP patrolling. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This counts deletion tagging and other stats of stuff done via the curation toolbar (or the 'mark as patrolled' link). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I don't think undeletion, and only maintenance tagging but not marking as reviewed, are quite the same level of work as marking as reviewed or csd tagging. Imo they are not complete reviews. If you think it's a good idea, consider forking this, removing those two, then converting username to a variable at the top. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the quarry instead of forking it. I've commented out the other two queries, in case some future reviewers are interested in those stats as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So who's bright idea was it to ask brand-new NPPers, some still on trial periods, to review the work of people who have been doing it for years? Scanning down Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023, where "issues" are supposed to be reported, I already see a reviewer on a trial asking quibbling (wrongly) with a three-year veteran about MOS:DABNOLINK; and another patroller on a trial misidentifying the reviewer of an article. The logs show many more instances of unnecessary second-guessing that, contra the instructions, weren't followed up on that talk page.

Apart from being a bizarre way to use time when we're trying to reduce a backlog (surely we can all agree that enforcing the manual of style on disambiguation pages is not exactly a high priority?), it's a sure recipe for conflict. New NPPers on trial periods or in their first few months should be focusing on learning the ropes and getting the right permanently, not starting pointless arguments with other patrollers. Whoever is running this, please get some kind of guidance in place for who should re-review and when (if we even need to do it at all). – Joe (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its been done since at least the Nov 2021 drive. Obviously, it is meant for veteran NPPers checking the work of newbies. But, even some bad re-reviews (if swiftly corrected) will get the newcomer to understand some aspect of reviewing better, IMO. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the talk pages of the backlog drives since then, I don't see a single valid concern with a review raised. New idea or not, I think my points above still stand, it's not a great one. – Joe (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this point. What do you think we should do about it? Should we only exclude trial NPPs from the re-review, or should we also exclude new NPPs (those with 1 month of experience)? By the way, I'm also informing the drive's coordinators, @Hey man im josh, and @Illusion Flame, about this. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never loved the idea of re-reviewing, but I got involved in this drive after it had already been partially set up. I'm open to just not doing it after this drive is concluded. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view does appear to be a minority, but I support the re-review system. The goal is to combat the possibility poor reviewing that a drive may cause. I believe we should have re-reviews only be for experienced reviewers. A message added to the top of this page could read: Re-reviews should only be completed by experienced reviewers very familiar with our policies and guidelines. New reviewers and reviewers on a trial period are discouraged from using the re-review system. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally, the idea behind backlog drive re-reviews (for NPP, AFC, or any backlog drive that uses them) is to catch if someone is doing a bunch of poor reviews or reviewing too fast in order to get more points. Removing re-review requirements would get a different kind of complaint on this talk page, from those who are worried that backlog drives gamify things too much and lead to poor quality reviews. So take your pick of who you want to get complaints from :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Novem Linguae and Illusion Flame. We could adopt a criteria in the next backlog drive to discourage brand new NPRs (<1 month of experience) and any still on trial from re-reviewing, but I don't think the system should be scrapped entirely because more often than not a second pair of eyes is beneficial (the aforementioned re-reviews are not great, but I don't think they form the majority and when I occasionally do cursory re-reviews I tend to find a couple that warrant AfD or a notability tag). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to just have a veteran spot check those newish reviewers with big numbers. For me a big part of what makes this job so painful is that it is impossible to do it perfectly and in a way that would be bulletproof to a magnifying glass applied later. Such could discourage reviewing. To do the full flow chart 100%, do a full wp:before on deletions, provide tags on all of the taggable problems, do everything that the fan clubs at AFD say was expected would take about 1/2 hr to 1 hour per article. If you look at the numbers, that would bring our backlog up to 100,000 within a few months. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The October NPP drive significantly reduced the articles backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431. These are remarkable results, and we all did an excellent job. Despite our best efforts to reduce the backlog, there remains a substantial backlog for both articles and redirects, and it continues to grow rapidly. As the October drive is very recent, organizing a new drive right now isn't feasible. Therefore, we should plan the next drive for March or April. Additionally, it might be beneficial to schedule backlog drives at specific times in a year, such as one in March, one in July or August, and one in November. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One in March-ish sounds good to me. Not sure yet about prefined ones, as in the past it seems only in response to an backlog backlog. Worth thinking about though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article backlog increased by 2,235 and the redirect backlog increased by 4,306 in just 14 days. If this rate continues, there may be approximately 17,000 articles and around 30,000 redirects by March. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there, say, 5-year charts of the backlog level and a list of drives somewhere? Might be interesting. Don't want to overanalyse things though. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on scheduling another backlog drive as soon as practical. March sounds good to me. I suggest we give up on the redirect backlog and do article backlog drives from now on. Articles are more important. Splitting our efforts between both articles and redirects is likely to dilute our limited available bandwidth and result in neither reaching zero. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition for consistent reviewing

Maybe it would be healthier to have something that focuses on building more reviewers that are active on an ongoing basis. For example, longer term (over 1 year) there are only 7 reviewers that average at least 2 articles per day and only 19 that average at least one per day. Maybe add an database listing (and eventually awards) of who has gone the most months with reviewing at least 20 articles in each month. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. We can do this in addition to a backlog drive. Recognition coordinator @Dr vulpes, would you be interested in exploring this idea further (i.e. setting up a page somewhere, a quarry query) and then executing it (by announcing it and giving out barnstars)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]