@MB, Novem Linguae, Buidhe, Zippybonzo, and MPGuy2824: I'm really not sure that yet another backlog drive so close on the heels of the last one is a good idea - it remains to be seen. IMO the reviewers will by now be fed up of constantly being told to do more and we know already that generally they don't, at least not the 600 inactive ones. IMO It will not only dilute the the importance of such drives and reduce their impact, but also the value of barnstars. NPP has to start looking outside the box for solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When's the next backlog drive scheduled? Was there a consensus for it or was it an executive decision? If the latter, perhaps starting a thread at WT:NPPR asking if NPPs want another backlog drive would help gauge the appetite for it. Personally I am pro backlog drive, but we should also try to address Kudpung's legitimate concern. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae, there was some discussion two weeks ago at the newsletter TP if you missed that. The drive is October, a mass message went out ~ eight hours ago and 40 people have signed up. It looks like appetite to me. MB 04:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MB, 40 people signing up in 8 hours is definitely adequate for determining consensus. Thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone like to consider making a template like this:

{{Hi. {{BASEPAGENAME}} .Your editing demonstrates a consistent dedication to Wikipedia content. Have you considered joining the team that reviews new articles and passes them for inclusion? Do read [[WP:NPR]] and [[WP:NPP]] first and if you think you're up to it (be warned - it's hard work 😉), you can apply at [[WP:PERM]]. |~~~~}}}}

No frame, no background. Should create a L2 header: New Page Review. It should populate a new cat 'NPR invitations' so that we can track its performance. The idea is to make it look like a highly personalised talk page message. I think it has a more modern and streamlined approach to the previous banner-style one. Preferably targeted at newish users with more than 12 months and more than 1,000 non automated mainspace edits and an excellent command of English and not editing only from a phone. (example). Looks like this:

Hi. New pages patrol. Your editing demonstrates a consistent dedication to Wikipedia content. Have you considered joining the team that reviews new articles and passes them for inclusion? Do read WP:NPR and WP:NPP first and if you think you're up to it (Be warned - it's hard work 😉), you can apply at WP:PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kudpung. Have you seen Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Outreach and invitations? That is a similar template, created by Insertcleverphrasehere. buidhe and Dr vulpes inherited that template and a screening process from ICPH and, when they have had time, have been going through the list and inviting folks. Are you OK with that process, or were you thinking something different? Also buidhe and Dr vulpes, how many invites did you send out and how effective were your efforts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably around 100 invites total for me, a few of whom actually applied for npp rights (t · c) buidhe 02:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go back and check, but as a guess I think I've reached out to ~40-50 and two or three said they were interested. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your efforts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long day and I messed those numbers up. I've reviewed about 50 editors, reached out to six, two said they were interested, zero have applied for NPP privileges. I've screened another 50 and have a few more I"m going to reach out to later this week. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae, of course I've seen it: I think it has a more modern and streamlined approach to the previous banner-style one. that's why I suggest the more personal, less obviously 'stock message' version above. UX studies from even the earliest Internet times, suggest that personal messages come across better. Way back in the old days I had a whole repertoire of self-written messages stored on my computer in Typinator. Then there finally came a project where a group of editors including me and DGG cleaned up a lot of template messages. Perhaps an AB test would be an interesting experiment but the sample sizes would probably need to be larger than Dr vulpes's and Buidhe's campaigns. I've sent out many invites over the years but in those days I was always too busy to follow up on any effect they had. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use MMS for NPP recruitment?

If we want to get serious about recruitment, we may want to look into something higher volume. The current workflow that we're using involves a thorough screening and then individually delivering each message, which are both time consuming. Perhaps we should change the wording of the template a bit, do a WP:MMS to hundreds or thousands of candidates generated from a Quarry query, then WP:PERM/NPP can do the screening for us for those that apply. This would be much more efficient because we're currently doing unnecessary WP:PERM/NPP style screenings for folks that don't apply. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, a larger sample size, and some AB testing may be worthwhile before launching such a major campaign. I totally agree with the admins' predicament at PERM - perhaps the threshold should be raised, but based on the new trend for requiring a major RfC for every minor nut and bolt, particularly ones affecting user rights issues, the RfC will always be met with resistance from the hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've mentioned the exponetial growth in the expansion of the Internet in some regions and the availability of low-cost smart phones there - well noted that we got some flak from two users for mentioning it in the first draft of the Open Letter - but this excellent article in August by Akhil George in The Times of India, one of the country's most respected newspapers, makes no bones about it: "India recently became the second largest contributor to the English Wikipedia after the US".

If that doesn't confirm the need for reviewers who can read sources in Indic languages, I don't know what does. Any campaigns to recruit new reviewers should bear this in mind, but we want to avoid another Wifione| (former admin) which is another reason why reviewers should always be on their mettle and not patrol too quickly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the next newsletter ready to send if anyone wants to take a look. MB 15:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible nobody is watching its talk page. Interested contributors could consider the new 'subscribe' feature for threads. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing on a popular user talk page, the WMF appears to have got something very wrong. The employee's claim of how NPP works is surely very far from reality. To wit, NPP doesn't even have that many active reviewers. To reduce the backlog, those who do the vast majority of reviews are having to patrol articles at a rate that leaves little time for visits from such a multitude of other reviewers. Such a claim stated as a fact, even if made from a 'volunteer' account, does not help grow the community's confidence in the Foundation or help the reviewers in their call to the WMF for involvement of any kind that would improve the process or create an alternative. All Foundation projects have some form of quality control for new articles, the truly active reviewers at en.Wiki are a dedicated bunch of people and the encyclopedia would be in a sorry state without them. Even if they created the software for it, the WMF obviously dosn't know how NPP works in practice; either that or the comment was a misguided piece of levity. I hope the latter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It grows my confidence to know there is someone at the WMF who is active as a volunteer and even better that this employee is thinking deeply about NPP (and knows to contribute at User talk:Iridescent). I agree with you Kudpung that the situation is not as absurd as WhatamIdoing suggests. But I think she's right to ask: how can we review pages better. Giving volunteers the chance to lean into specialties as is proposed seems like a reasonable one as is the idea that perhaps NPP is trying to patrol too much and a narrower focus on notability and CSD could be a backlog assist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I agree that a narrower focus on notability and CSD could be a backlog assist, but how should it be proposed? At the moment, NPP has to work with whatever human and software resources it has. All genuine suggestions are of course most welcome from anyone in the community, but throwing sand in the works by making absurd claims surely cannot help. Iridescent's talk page is mainly populated by a smaller group of regulars from the better informed members of the community, and generally some very intelligent discussion takes place there, thus some may be led to believe that such statements are accurate. At the moment, it's the new coordinators who are thinking deeply about NPP - and thinking outside the box, hence their initiative with the Open Letter. Let's hope that part of it works. It's apparently been noticed by the WMF even if it has been shunned by the BoT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also am hopeful by the work of the current coordinators and want to be supportive (mainly by staying out of their way given what capacity I have). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, the claim by WhatamIdoing is absurd because it just ain't true. There is a possible technical solution however that would approach her 'idea', but it would never work simpy because to do it, we would never grow the number of active patrollers beyond what we have already, and the WMF would simply refuse on the cost/benefit aspect (they won't even pay for urgent fixes). Don't forget that the WMF is interested only in growing the number of articles in the encyclopedia irrespective of the quality, and that's the stance WAID has held since she argued with me, Scottywong, and The Blade of the Northern Lights 12 years ago (diffs available}. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. Being someone within theoretical (if not practical, since only a maniac with a death wish would dare attempt it) walking distance of the original location of the largest fast food chain on Earth, the "we'll throw everyone who's gullible enough to work hard on our behalf under the bus in the name of quantity" attitude is depressingly familiar. Also, given the state of CSD (which would make even the most rigid bureaucrat in real life weep blood) there's not a truly efficient way for those small number of patrollers to handle things. I haven't been able to force myself to do any meaningful patrolling in about 10 years, and every time I try I'm reminded of why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights, as you and I discussed while walking the length and breadth of Governer's Island in NY for 2 hours just over 10 years ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Plus ça change... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rather feel this thread was archived prematurely. As some of these discussions are on development issues and can last longer than 30 days, could we consider reverting to manual archiving?

@MB, Novem Linguae, and Joe Roe: At New article banner, we were discussing a genial idea (which I believe was from MB) about putting a small, discreet banner on unpatrolled pages, similar to a process used on de.Wiki. Has this idea simply been abandoned, or can we continue to discuss it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been abandoned. Sidetracked by the WMF letter, waiting for NL to dig deeper into implementation, etc. I believe you were going to take another look at the associated doc. I was planning to do a formal RFC on this, just not ready yet. MB 13:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss such changes, you first need to find people who have the time, the energy, and the initiative to discuss them. When someone comes up with an idea, dozens of people are ready to chime in and rip it apart, but when the time comes to actually carry out changes that get consensus, suddenly no one is around - Xaosflux and TonyBallioni can sing a song about it.
– Kudpung 5 September 2017

Ye, I'll take another look at the associated doc. I too have been distracted by the letter campaign and the Signpost article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another option. See the top message on this page. MB 21:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the backlog has been very low (<200) for more than a week (except for a temporary spike a few hours back), I don't think we need to show the backlog number above the page tabs on every NPP-related page. I've added code to hide that template when the backlog is below 500. If anyone wants to undo this (or tweak the number), you can do so at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Page tabs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be there at all, and only is because the template's creator, MB, has been slow edit warring about it. The backlog is only really of interest to current reviewers on pages like WT:NPR. Clumsily inserting at the top of 19 documentation and talk pages is a poor solution. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, actually you are the one who is doing what you think is best without seeking consensus. This has been discussed and there was absolutely no objection. You seem to be the only one who has a problem prominently displaying the backlog. MB 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You posting that "someone" (not even a courtesy ping) reverted you and one person agreeing with you is neither a consensus nor a "discussion". You need consensus to add something to a page, not to not-add it. It's a handy template you've made, but it's not the most important thing on every single NPP-related page. When you first objected to me removing it, I tried to find a compromise by re-adding it to specific pages where it is relevant. Can you try and do that too? Who do you think is actually going to use this template, and when? – Joe (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ping you because you frequently comment there so I thought you had it on your watchlist. If you read it carefully, I asked if anyone objected and no one did. All the other people who read it and did not object implicitly agreed; this is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)

That is ridiculous. When "someone" disagrees with one of your edits, you talk about it, not fall back on a telepathic poll. Why aren't you willing to discuss this? – Joe (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep count in page tabs at all times. The template was worked on by myself and others and now looks decent, solving some aesthetic concerns at the time of its original implementation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 has updated the script to offer a customized message to the article author when their article is moved to draft. The author of the script, @Evad37 has been virtually inactive for almost a year and has not responded to email, so waiting for him to update his version with MPGuy's changes is not realistic. Having an interface-admin do it seems unlikely as well (see prior discussion). Continuing that conversation here, we have to decide on the rollout of the new version.

Since Evad's script is not being updated, any method will require the script users to make some change. The new version could just be a MPGuy user script, but he has said he does not want that - understandably as he has just made one relatively minor enhancement. @Xaosflux has suggested that it could be a "community script". That would keep it from being "owned" by a specific user and thus more readily update-able by interface admins.

Another option suggested is that this could be a Gadget, so it would be available in Preferences. According to WP:Gadgets, that would require a consensus at WP:VPT and Xaoflux has said approval there would need "some maintainers that know what they are doing and want to take it on".

@Kudpung has suggested it be limited to NPP/admins (he has proposed restricting Move to Draft in that way). I'm not sure about that at this time - unless moving to draft is formally restricted, we would want everyone to use this script rather than just doing it manually if the script was only available to NPP/admins. MB 16:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically I'd suggest not making it a gadget because they does invite a much wider group of people to be using it. And Kudpung's rationale for why it should be a smaller group is something I agree with. So some kind of community script feels like the best option? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redesigned this script's UI on the understanding that it would be only available to NPP and admins as I was under the impression it always was and that anyone else who is determined to move a page to draft could do it the long way, but this is certainly a juncture for restricting moving to draft entirely to NPP and admins. That would however, according to the new silly trend of needing a site-wide RfC for every nut and bolt, need a site-wide or at least a local RfC, but that is an entirely different issue to the simple but more effective uplift to the script's UI. The redesign came about because:

1. constant murmurs from the community that the use of draft is excessive,
2. constant murmurs from the community that it's used as a backdoor route to deletion,
3. constant murmurs that the default message was too aggressive/unfriendly,
4. we have an excellent new target page in the message without using alphabet soup and presenting the noobs with walls of text of policies, some of which are 9 print-pages long.
5. anticipation of using it as a new feature in the Page Curation fly-out when, following our meeting yesterday with the Director of Product and her staff, the PageCuration tools will be uprgaded for us by the WMF.

There was never any intention for it to become a gadget, if there was, its original creator, who is again incommunicado (that's why in 2018 I saved The Signpost from closing down), would have made it so. Personally I'm not concerned with the technology of how it's hosted; it's a user script and does not need a great debate or any debate, it's use like all user scripts is voluntary and not mandatory - like all user scripts it just saves work. Let's just get it rolled out one way or another with a minimum of fuss. If I were still an interface admin I would have done it already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current script can be used by anyone, it's just that without advanced permissions, it can't do some parts of the process, like deleting the redirect to the draft from the old title. This change to the script came about due to multiple discussions that articles were being moved without a custom message, and the default message was not getting the author to understand what was wrong with the article. I don't see this is related to #1 & 2, or that we wouldn't have wanted to do this even without #4 & #5.

The original author did not make it a gadget because that is normally reserved for widely-used tools - 1000+ users (there are currently around 730). However, making it a gadget comes with the ability to restrict its usage to users with certain rights. So if we want to take this opportunity to restrict its usage, a gadget may be the way to do that. If we went that route, we could see about getting the original script disabled also, so non-NPPers couldn't keep using it as is. MB 22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget vs user script will not affect the ability to restrict it to certain user rights. In user scripts, you can check permissions with code.

The main benefit of gadgets is that they show up in Special:Preferences, which is a way to market them more widely since you just have to check a box. The main downside of gadgets is that you need to do intadmin edit requests to modify them. This is also a downside of "community scripts" not hosted in a userspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? According to Xaoxflux, If a gadget, it can also be only offered to people using certain skins, or with certain permissions. MB 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the same thing in user scripts using a conditional. If ! mw.something.something('patrol') return; –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could restrict the users without an RFC. However that will just mean that non NPPs use the old script and not the new script that has the permissions check. Therefore I am disinclined to limit it to just NPPs at this time.

Having to do intadmin edit requests all the time just to adjust stuff is a big hassle. I'd suggest that whoever the main maintainer ends up being should host it in their userspace. Bummer that MPGuy2824 doesn't want to host it. As an alternative, I would suggest that I host the script in my userspace. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any issue with you hosting it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, non NPPers did not have access to Evad's script anyway. At least that what's in one of my test accounts, one that is autoconfirmed. I would host it in my userspace but that would be a bit silly considering I can't read or use any IT languages. I'm not worried where it's hosted, let's just get it done and available only to NPP. If anyone else wants desperately to move an article to draft they can do it the long way. We can't deny them that any more than we can deny them the use of Twinkle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If hosting it in my/Novem's userspace seems the best solution, then sure. My suggestion was to host it in NPP space (if the requisite page protections would be there). That way it is more obvious that it is not my script and others are welcome to update/fix things in it. Making it into a Gadget sounds like a short-term hassle, but better in the long term to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gadget approach has some advantages too - as MPGuy says, no one will feel like they are solely responsible, and we won't be back in this position if NL or whoever accidentally walks in front of a bus. I get that there is some extra hassle involved in getting an update - but that seems to be more of a problem if you are asking someone to make a specific change. I presume we would always have a tested complete updated version and would just have to ask that the new version be copied over - a very straightforward change. MB 04:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we need to get it right first time. See the updates in the GUI image, but I forgot to incorporate the checkbox for 'Other'. The risk of NL walking in front of a bus is less likely than Evad's long periods incommunicado. I will also probably be properly retiring soon. OTOH, the gadget process will take a lot longer to get rolled out because there will probably be opposition from the policy police. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All above-mentioned issues have been resolved with the script. It's now on enwiki at User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft. I put this link out on discord yesterday and no one has complained of any issues, yet. Maybe we could inform NPP reviewers of this on the discussion page with the understanding that it might get moved over to a Gadget sometime in the future. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a special mass-message to the NPP mailing list, but I don't think we should do that until we decide on the final location. For now, a notice on the discussion page too is probably OK, with the disclaimer. Do you want me to put something there? MB 06:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you? Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and MPGuy2824: I would be more inclined to avoid inviting any discussion for a while. Discussion only invites more negative comment than positive appreciation - it's the nature of things on Wikipedia. I would say just let people use it and they will come up with their own suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824 I really don't understand. Evad's script always had a customisation option didn't it? I even changed the details of the default message with a bit of code on my common.js — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new version gives the option to pick from multiple messages, instead of just changing the default message. This also opens the door for other bug fixes and features now that we have an active maintainer. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evad's script always had a customisation option didn't it?, it still does, ICPH, it's in the freely editable 'Other' field. What the new version does is to permit reviewers to select an accurate, thematic message message to the article creator without having to make one up or 'customise' a default message. It's also less aggressive by not bombarding the creator with spoonfuls of alphabet soup, instead linking the creator to a more warmly presented help page where they can get more answers and further assistance. It takes away any perceived bad faith component that every author of a draftified article is deliberately or recklessly abusing Wikipedia policies. Lots of genuine articles with potential are also correctly draftfied. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, MPGuy2824. Would it be feasible to use templates for the message texts, so that they're open to editing and refinement? – Joe (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one message text with phrases added or removed, based on the issues that you find in the article. I don't think it should be hard to get that message's text from a template. I'll try to do that the next time someone asks for a change to it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire principle behind the UX design is to deliberately avoid templates and avoid interference from people who feel they must edit and re-edit everything they see. On Wikipedia one often ends up with more blue links than black print. The process is a simple one, that's why it links to a simple but attractive page. There are therefore deliberately no message texts. The system was the result of much discussion and many designs of both the UI and the target page before the final version was decided upon and has also been discussed with the WMF within the framework of PageTriage upgrading where it will not be available for re-editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Interference from people who feel they must edit and re-edit everything"... sounds like Wikipedia's raison d'être, to me? :)

I like the current message, but I think it could use a light copyedit to fix obvious grammatical mistakes (e.g. a draft where – a draft is not a place). On a more general note, I've tried to make incremental improvements to the old draftify script's various texts before, and relying on one person to make the change was an annoying bottleneck. I don't see how using a subst'd template to store the text, as opposed the Javascript file it's currently in, would even be detectable from a UX point of view. – Joe (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NPP uses 15 minutes in three places - #1 & #2 specifically say don't CSD A1/A3/A7 an article for 15 minutes. #3 says 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. If #1 & #2 are saying to give no-content issues time to be fixed, but are implying that other CSDs (e.g. Copyvio) can be done immediately, that is in conflict with #3 that says "any deletion" must wait at least 15 minutes. That discrepancy should be fixed.
2. Specifically regarding Draftification, I don't see why we shouldn't just say always wait at least an hour.

MB 00:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity reasons, I think we should align our advice to be 15 minutes for almost everything (except for egregious cases, e.g. vandalism, attack pages, etc.). –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could align our advice to be 1 hour for almost everything as well. There really is no rush for non-egregious cases. Sitting in mainspace for another 45 minutes gives a much better chance of knowing if the author has an intention of making a decent article. That also aligns better with the existing guidance that says "often appropriate to wait an hour or more." I agree it is better to develop articles in User or Draft space, but policy does not require it. We even have {{under construction}}, and some people work this way. MB 03:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards consistency, but I'm flexible. I wrote the tutorial (or most of it) but that was yonks ago. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An hour of copyvio won't kill us (if it's fixed it can just be RD'd instead of outright deleted) but I would be opposed ot saying we need to leave an attack page up for an hour - I have a special script just so I can try to respond to those requests quickly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the {{under construction}} template should be deprecated, it's a vestige from the days when WP was so desperate for articles it was tolerated for them to be developed in mainspace. It's not necessary nowadays and it already wasn't when the old incubator was created in 2009. AFAICS Page Curation only says "Note: This page is only x minutes old. Consider waiting to tag it, unless the issue is serious." It doesnt mention a time frame. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]