Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

Wikipedia talk:Page Curation: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5 Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present.

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]

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]

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]

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]

 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]

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]

I am the new guy on the block, so the following problems might be between the chair and the keyboard. Still,

1. The curation tool, when the RFD path is chosen, inserts the {{Rfd-NPF}} template without a newline at the end, thus making manual deletion of the template harder and creates a possibility of accidentally removing the REDIRECT itself. See, for example, [2]. Simply adding a newline to the inserted text should help.
2. When I try to withdraw the nomination using WP:XFDcloser, it get stuck and does neither remove the {{Rfd-NPF}} from the nominated redirect page, nor tag the talk page.

I wound up always manually deleting the tag due to #2, and at least once accidentally deleted the redirect due to #1. Any pointers will be appreciated. Викидим (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:New Page Reviewer granted § Survey on what bullets/tips/Discord links to include. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello New pages patrol,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth criterion may be rather confusing. Does it means that one should not have blocks in place in the last six month or blocks placed in the last 6mo? Too curious to ask this because I have had a partial block from August to November; I would theoretically be ineligible for the rights until June if the criterion meant active blocks withing the duration. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the former (blocks in place in last 6 months). I've boldly edited Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Guidelines for granting to make this clearer. The latter (blocks placed in last 6 months) would create a situation where you could be blocked for most of the six months, just had it expire, then apply for NPP, which I think most would agree is not desirable.

Your situation (a partial block that expired 5 months ago) is borderline and I think a PERM admin would evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by the way. Since the block was as a result of "clerical" activity that was criticized here and here. However, it is unrelated to content editing, deletion processes or AfC. I will try to apply soon. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 07:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NPPers,

I have a question I hope someone can answer. I see a lot of draft articles and I monitor the Move log so I see a lot of articles that have been moved from User space to main space by new editors. When I first started doing this, I'd see a link stating "Mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom of all of the new pages added to main space. Now, I only see this tag on about half of the new pages (or fewer than that) that are added so I'm worried that these new articles are not appearing on the page lists that NPPers monitor. I check the page log to see if the article has already been reviewed and they never are. Has something changed in the bot or mechanism that tags new articles? Are new articles not reviewed if they are moved from Draft space to main space? Are there other reasons why this patrol link would not appear on the page? Lots of questions I've been wondering for a few weeks now. Thanks for any answers you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, the "Mark this page as patrolled" button is hidden by PageTriage in mainspace, as the Curation toolbar's "Mark as reviewed" button does the same thing (in essence). Unless the user moving the page is autopatrolled, the absence of an entry in the review log and patrol log should mean that the article is still in the queue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz. Can you give some links please for further investigation? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can install the User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/ReviewStatus userscript. It displays the review status next to the page name, making it very easy for you to check if a page is marked as reviewed or not, especially if patrol logs are not available for a page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning the NPP Browser tool in the April 2024 Newsletter. I have not seen this before, and think it is fantastic and rather helpful. FULBERT (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here! I plan to make heavy use of it with my reviewing in the future. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked it. We will try to add more useful tips in the next issues. Thanks to MPGuy2824 for regularly maintaining this tool. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, someone emailed me asking to create an article for pay for Sonu Sharma, a motivational speaker. I was concerned about how they obtained my email address, as I use it exclusively for Wikipedia. Given my strict stance against paid editing, I declined the request. If any reviewer comes across an article creation for Sonu Sharma, please remember to check for any UPE/COI concerns. Thanks. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 —Sirdog (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bot invite to consider joining New Page Patrol. Sounded interesting, so I started reading the tutorial. Came to the section entitled “Reviewing — Basic Steps” and saw this:

Are you f*** kidding?

If that’s the “Basic Steps”, I can’t imagine what the “Advanced steps” are. Probably require a post-graduate degree.

Sorry, I’m out. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the chart you've embedded is the advanced chart. File:Simplified_NPP_flowchart_for_articles.png is the simple chart. The advanced chart is indeed overwhelming and has been discussed here before, so your reaction is not entirely unwarranted. It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already. The brunt of the work is the notability in my experience. —Sirdog (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“It's further worth noting that a majority of the steps on the advanced chart are things that, at your experience level, you are probably doing already.” Thank you for the compliment, but it’s not warranted. When I expand that chart and try to follow it, no, there’s lots there that I’ve never thought about. In any event, it’s way too dense to be of assistance, to me at least. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: You could have just not accepted the invite. What is the intent of this post? What are you hoping to accomplish? Is this just to complain instead of saying no thank you? But, as mentioned, that's the advanced / overly detailed flowchart. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for thinking that you might want feedback on why someone is turned off by your recruitment drive, instead of encouraged by it to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s the advanced flowchart, why is it right under a heading that says “Basic steps”? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would want feedback, but your intent when you started this discussion was unclear, largely because of the "Are you f*** kidding?" Do you have any suggestions that you can make that would simplify the process or make it more easy to digest? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Delete that chart entirely. It is useless.

2 have a short section clearly labelled “tutorial”, and providing a much more focussed discussion of the process, instead of the bloated page that is currently there.

3 keep the tutorial just to the tools, reviewing new pages, and do not BITE.

4 Let them start on new pages only.

5 later on, they can expand into redirects or other types of pages once they’re comfortable with the tools and the process.

6 move all the other stuff to a related page. An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages, or conduct, or unreviewing, or the administrators, or the entire history of the NPP. Have links to those issues on a separate page, not part of the tutorial, , so that a new NPP can learn gradually, without being overwhelmed by all that stuff.

7 make it easy to start!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 – That's very ignorant. It's very obviously not useless, even if you don't like it.

3 – What does biting have to do with our reviewing guides? We're usually quite helpful to newcomers who have questions.

4 – I'm not certain what you're getting at. The purpose of NPP is to review new pages.

5 – Redirects are actually a lot easier to review, though plenty of people have no interest in reviewing redirects and that's ok.

6 – An editor just starting out NPP doesn’t need to know about patrolling redirects or other pages – We review articles and redirects. These are precisely what users need to know off the bat. Additionally, if we broke everything up into sub pages it would become more difficult to find relevant info. In it's current state, we can more easily find info on the page with the search function. Not saying there aren't improvements that can be made, but splitting things info further subpages doesn't seem beneficial to me.

7 – NPP is easy to start if you focus on your area of interest and have experience in the area in evaluating notability and other issues. It's why we frequently recommend WP:NPPSORT. However, there's simply too much to consider to say, "read this 5 minutes worth of content".

I do appreciate the feedback, but a lot of it seems to be from a place of not fully understanding the role of NPP and how we go about things. Are there improvements we could make? Sure, and we're always trying to do better. But we can't strip downs thing as much as I think you're suggesting. Hey man im josh (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with any guideline page, I think we assume that people read the sections that are relevant to them, i.e. you wouldn't read "reviewing redirects" if you only intend to review articles, and you wouldn't read the history section unless you were interested in it. Splitting these sections off to articles would make the page physically shorter, but I'm not convinced it would make it more readable, and there'd be a cost in terms of maintainability and ease of navigation. – Joe (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very valid point: Right beside the heading "Basic steps" I see displayed that elaborate flowchart. Yes at the very bottom (below the bottom of my laptop screen), that chart is labelled "Detailed flowchart for reviewing articles", but its positioning makes it look as if it belongs to the "Basic steps" heading.

Could someone perhaps produce a simple diagram which corresponds to the outline "Basic steps", to insert in the tutorial at that stage, to avoid frightening off newcomers who are hoping to help? Maybe a version of File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png, but appropriate for including in the tutorial.

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz@Hey man im josh: MrSB's comment seemed to be constructive feedback, albeit worded understandably strongly. PamD 07:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That flowchart is under "basic steps" to avoid all the figures under "reviewing articles" from clumping together, nothing more. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But placement is the message. The message I got was that chart was the “basic steps” I would need to master to join NPP. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree that flowcharts are not the best way to present this information, but the actual policies and processes the flowchart describes are the bare minimum you need to know to patrol new pages. NPP deals with all new articles, and therefore every possible topic and every possible content problem; there's a limit to how far we can simplify that. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that chart is both very useful and also misleading. I think very useful because it covers practically all of the potential tasks and practically all of the potential scenarios. I'd rather have that than a chart that is missing things where I'd have to spend hours scratching my head trying to learn what's missing and learning it rather take a few extra minutes to read that big chart. On the flip side, if every NPP'er did a super thorough job on every task and possibility, we'd have a 2,000,000 article backlog instead of a 14,000 article one. Or get discouraged feeling guilty for not spending 1 hour per article doing a super thorough job on every task and possibility. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I can easily just click on "Check for copyvio" on the NPP toolbar, but for these few days the tool seems to not be working. It says "Calculating copyvio percentage" but the result never came out. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had the same. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DannyS712, the maintainer of the User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js user script, to see if they can assist. – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a CORS error. Bug report filed at User talk:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js#CORS error. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have forked this script. See User:DreamRimmer/copyvio-check.js – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens if I install this script? Will it override the script by @DannyS712 on the Curation tool? Thank you! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd want to uninstall the other script before installing the fork. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does your fork fix the bug? Also we could just wait for Danny. They edited earlier today. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have fixed the bug and added error handling. I'm okay with you or Danny moving the code to his script and deleting my fork, since all users have already installed Danny's script. And if Danny wants to handle his script differently, that's entirely up to him :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. DannyS712, the maintainer of User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js, fixed the bug today. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint above was not expressed very nicely but does hit on a relatively frequent point of feedback about Wikipedia:New pages patrol, which is that the various flowcharts and diagrams might put people off more than they help.

There are currently only two flowcharts left on the page. To help decide whether they should be there, could we have a quick straw poll on whether current NPPers find them useful or not? – Joe (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified[edit]

Do you find Novem Linguae's File:Simplified NPP flowchart for articles.png useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

• Yes Ingratis (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as a quick reference. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed[edit]

Do you find Insertcleverphrasehere's File:NPP flowchart.svg useful? Or did you, when you were new to reviewing?

• Yes - this one answers more questions, but I wouldn't unleash it on someone until they had at least some experience. Ingratis (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes – I worked off of it for quite a while until I got the hang of things. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, an an in depth explainer on the different steps. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• yes very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Is that the right question? Should the question be "When you were new to NPP, did you find the flowcharts useful?", as MrSB's point is that they are offputting for new or potential NPP volunteers. Whether they are useful as an aide-memoire for experienced NPPers is a different question. PamD 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're probably right, amended accordingly. This also isn't a very scientific exercise, since anyone really put off by the flowcharts probably isn't watching this talk page. But I can't see a way around that. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. One possible outcome (Question 1, Option D) would affect the workflow of new page reviewers. – Joe (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, for consistency with other templates, I will move a few templates relating to the deletion notices on user talk pages such as Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:AfD-notice-NPF, and this can be impacted a lot. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit: Woah, hold on. Why are you moving these? Why is consistency is needed? Have you discussed this anywhere? Have you verified that the Page Curation extension will still be able to find them at the new titles? What if the redirects are deleted? – Joe (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical that redirects are left when moving page and still works. But consistency is recommended as in Template:RFDNote-NPF and Template:Rfd notice (it was moved following discussion). If there is disagreement, then it must be reverted. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find what discussion you're talking about. I think it would be best if you self-reverted and created an WP:RM – that is almost always a good idea before embarking on mass moves. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mass moves can cause problems. It is best to gain consensus first. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a couple of these just now but I think @ToadetteEdit should undo the rest since there's objections on this page. Here's the rest that need to be undone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to normal deletion templates instead of custom ones?[edit]

Honestly it might make sense to get rid of these custom NPR deletion templates and just use the standard template. Not sure we need all this code duplication. But that's something to discuss after everything is moved back and we're at the status quo ante. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of that. – Joe (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. —Sirdog (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the close button, the little 'x' at the top of the toolbar, by mistake. Now I can't see my toolbar. How can I restore this? As far as I can tell, it is no longer there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity here is an image: [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Click on "Open Page Curation" in the tools section (or tab, if you're using Vector) of the sidebar. – Hilst [talk] 00:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilst: OK. That did it. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]