Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 16 May 2024

• v
• t
• e

Articles

15284 ↑200

Oldest article

5 years old

Redirects

1721

Oldest redirect

5 months old

Article reviews

1693

Redirect reviews

5950

• There is a very large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing very rapidly (↑811 since last week)

• WT:NPP/R

This page is for New Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (invite link) For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies. For discussion on topics purely relevant to coordination tasks, such as for example - but not only - Backlog Drives, etc., please post at Coordination Talk

Top New Page Reviewers database report (updated by bot 2x daily)

NPP backlog

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, 52

Misplaced Pages talk:Page Curation: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5 Misplaced Pages: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.

Sonu Sharma

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

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

Basic steps

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)

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)

“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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The flowchart was always meant to be something to use when you 'got lost' or weren't sure what to do. Flowcharts aren't meant to be something that you memorize, but rather something that you use to determine what your next step should be. In practice, the flowchart is relatively simple, because you will NEVER use the whole chart for reviewing an article; you will follow a specific path through the chart and end up at one or more end points after doing a number of tasks. Does it work for everyone? No. No method works for everyone. But for some people, this is an awesome tool. Is it intimidating? You could argue that, but for me the flowchart removes the "I don't know what to do next" from reviewing in 99% of cases. — Insertcleverphrasehere 22:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

There diverse learning styles for Misplaced Pages's (steep) learning curve, and too it's good practice to have a formalized template, i.e. boilerplate. I look at the simple chart and see a blizzard of acronyms; I look at the advanced chart and see a clickable Venn diagram. (Click on this "Yes" and a section becomes moot.) Both the simple and the advanced charts serve their abstruse purpose, but basically one has to learn to learn. kencf0618 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What happens to the copyvio tool?

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Flowcharts

The complaint above was not expressed very nicely but does hit on a relatively frequent point of feedback about Misplaced Pages: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)

Simplified

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)
• Yes, as a quick reference. microbiologyMarcus 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• No See Tick-box culture, "too much emphasis on following rules instead of actually helping". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean tick-box culture? As part of NPP, there are explicit things that need to be checked before something can be marked as patrolled? Whether or not that list is too long or overly bureaucratic is a different conversation from whether or not a graphical aid is useful. microbiologyMarcus 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes As someone who just started reviewing for this backlog drive, the other one was too "tangled" for me to use to double-check that I'd considered everything, but this one is helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Somewhat It does have a number of good pieces of info and reminders (when to draftify, etc.), but for my ADHD mind, this leaves too many opportunities for me to skip a step, and actually seems more complicated to me. It requires me to keep more things in my head. But I can see why it would appeal to others. — Insertcleverphrasehere 22:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed

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)
• 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)
• Yes, an an in depth explainer on the different steps. microbiologyMarcus 14:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• No Even worse. See Computer says no. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Covers most decision points in NPP reviewing and so helped me get started. It probably is too many steps for a new editor but it is valuable. Skynxnex (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes As a new reviewer, I am currently relying on the detailed flowchart to learn the workflow, and when creating my first few articles, I used this image as a benchmark for minimum thresholds. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• No Sorry for confusingly putting my comment in the wrong place at first -- this is the one that I found too detailed in the wrong way as a newbie. It assumed I was checking things in a different order than mentally worked for me, and made it hard to keep track of my "place" in the process. I wouldn't at all advocate for removing it, but as an honest description of what I personally use, I don't use it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

Personally I don't think I used any flowcharts but I certainly don't object to their existence. (t · c) buidhe 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on enforcing general sanctions on new articles

Please see Misplaced Pages: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)

Attention

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 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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 14:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Switch to normal deletion templates instead of custom ones?

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)

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

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

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

Page curation toolbar

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)

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

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

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

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

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)

Leaving a note functionality

{{Sentnote-NPF}} still includes the advice to sign posts with tildes, which is unneeded now that that is done automatically by the reply tool. It also asks for a ping on reply to the editor who left the note. We should be able to take this out as well by having the Page Curation tool by automatically subscribe the reviewer to the section. How would that be changed? Sdkb  17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment on the removal of the four tildes or the echo notifications option. I think it's best to leave in. By definition, the project deals with a lot of newbies and sometimes, as much as you expect them to follow instructions or use things normally, they break. New users may just respond by editing the talk page (or any other manner possible). In this case, I think leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone, and in the event that they do leave the four tildes, the reply box signs once only anyways. microbiologyMarcus 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've also taken to leaving <!-- copy this as it appears rendered on the page, not from the edit screen--> as a note between the <code><nowiki> </nowiki></code> tags because I've seen people copy <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> right in their replies. microbiologyMarcus 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

leaving extra instruction isn't hurting anyone This is a really common (and understandable) belief — and it's 100% wrong. It's the main reason our guidance is filled with an impenetrable maze of WP:CREEP. And a wide body of usability research shows that what it causes is not for users to read and understand the extra instruction, but rather to go "that's too long" and not read any of the instruction, thus missing out on the more relevant instruction that they actually needed. Sdkb  19:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Is the reply tool on by default for all editors now? I've lost track of what's a script and what's a gadget etc. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "reply tool" is mw:Extension:DiscussionTools, which is a MediaWiki extension. Good question about whether it's on by default for everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Talk pages project § Deployment status states that DT the Reply tool should be on for everyone by default. Whether or not everyone is actually using it is a separate question, though. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Edited. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we certain that most or all the new editors replying to this message will be using DiscussionTools and not the source editor? Anyone using the source editor would still benefit from the advice to sign their posts and ping the reviewer. Not against removing the advice, but just want to make sure that the assumption that most or all new users now reply using DiscussionTools is correct.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329346
Getting PageTriage to auto subscribe the user to user talk sections that PageTriage creates is phab:T329346. I wrote a patch for this in another tool recently, and have plans to eventually roll it out to Twinkle and PageTriage. Will leave some notes in the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TFOLWP - translation attribution

WP:TFOLWP requires attribution in an edit summary (in a prescribed form: "Content in this edit is translated from the existing Misplaced Pages article at :Exact name of article]]; see its history for attribution.") of articles translated from Wikipedias in other languages in order to preserve edit history, copyright and so on. When articles are translated using the translation tool, a much shorter edit summary note is added automatically: 'Created by translating the page ":Exact name of article]]'. Is this an adequate replacement for the WP:TFOLWP wording, or should that be added separately? Ingratis (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as it provides the source project and page name it should be fine. The precise formats on that page are just recommendations. Could add a {{Translated page}} to the talk page as well, but that's optional. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Might want to ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Those folks are more likely to be experts on copyright attribution. By the way, link to translation tool, or instructions on how to open it? If you want to get its edit summary changed, we should figure out where its code is located. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

mw:Content translation – Joe (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's a suggested rather than a prescribed form. The attribution requirements of our license are notoriously fuzzy, with the only hard requirement being that it is done "the best of ability using the information available". As such, I don't think we need so sweat these differences in wording. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Best solution is to update the translation tool, imv (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

These things are often contained in local pages that can be edited by admins... the trouble is finding them. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(I shouldn’t really be here as I’m not an NPR but) Going by translatewiki, it looks like the relevant local page may be MediaWiki:Cx-publish-summary (in addition to two similar-looking messages at MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-summary & MediaWiki:Cx-sx-publish-lead-section-summary). All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten 14:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

OK - thanks all - that's v helpful. Best, Ingratis (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:Drafts - proposed split

There is currently a discussion at WT:Drafts regarding a proposed split of WP:Drafts. The thread is WT:Drafts#Split into help page and guideline. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio tool problem

Hello y'all. Today I encountered the same problem like few days back, the copyvio tool on the toolbar is not working anymore. Are y'all experiencing the same thing as well? The error is similar with few days ago - it stuck at "Calculating copyvio percentage". Pinging @DannyS712 as the creator of this great script and @DreamRimmer and @Novem Linguae that assisted on this problem last time. Have a pleasant day! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

1. When using the copyvio tool via the user script you're talking about, I'm getting 502 Bad Gateway.
2. When using the copyvio tool directly (example), I am getting An error occurred while using the search engine (Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests). Note: there is a daily limit on the number of search queries the tool is allowed to make. You may repeat the check without using the search engine.
3. When using the API (exact URL here), I am getting {"status": "error", "error": {"code": "search_error", "info": "An error occurred while using the search engine; try reloading or setting 'use_engine' to 0"}}.

Quite the assortment of errors. 2 and 3 look related, but 1 may be separate. Hmm.

Can you try it again tomorrow and let us know if there's still a problem? 2 and 3 should clear up tomorrow. The daily limit resets daily. This may or may not fix 1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It has worked well for now, thank you very much! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

UPE sock with NPR blocked

I'm notifying editors here that I've indefinitely blocked User:Loksmythe and revoked their NPR/autopatrolled user rights-- they're a likely sock of User:Plot Spoiler, who was indefinitely blocked for suspected UPE. I'm not sure how much scrutiny their reviews warrant, although I'm just now seeing they reviewed some articles created by hoaxer User:Fad Ariff, who was also likely involved in some paid editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up @Moneytrees. We've been making an effort to track this sort of thing at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Advanced permission holders connected to UPE. I'll add it to the list once I'm back on PC if no one does before me. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh That's an interesting page, I've added them myself now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Moneytrees! The more data we get the more useful it will be. Though, ideally, we wouldn't have more data to add to the page lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio reminder

I've just added a line to the NPP instructions that reminds patrollers to check the original language with Earwig, if an article is or may be a translation. If you only check the en-wiki version, you will likely not notice the copyright violation. Translated copyvio is still copyvio! -- asilvering (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

yes its a good line to add--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Good reminder! I’ve seen more and more translations lately. Zsinj 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback / re-reviews

Hello folks. I'm just over a week into NPP-ing, and would welcome any feedback or re-reviews of my patrolling. You'll see a couple of occasions where I've corrected myself as I go, but keen to learn from anything I've missed. (FWIW, am planning NPP school too.) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider linking a specific article you'd like us to check out. Is less brainpower to check one article rather than several, so you'd be more likely to get a response. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae, that's fair! There's no specific ones I remain uncertain about, so my request was more "if you're doing re-reviews anyway as part of the backlog drive, mine are a good place to start" :)

But will be sure to share if any specifics come up. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do moved pages need to be reviewed?

Everytime I move an article from one title to the other, I get a watchlist notification of the page being reviewed again by another editor. Why does the page need re-review? Is the reviewed flag strictly dependent on the article title, or is there a way out of this using wikitext and categorisation? I'm not sure how many newly created articles are moves, but I suspect it's just wasting volunteer time.

My suggestion is to change the tools used for Page moves so any moves automatically add "reviewed" status to the new article if the old page was already marked as reviewed. Soni (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Moves get reviewed because not every move should actually be made. I usually spend my time in the redirect queue and I've seen move vandalism, really contentious moves that shouldn't be made without consensus, etc, even if the most of them tend to be fine. You run into a similar situation with regular redirects – most are fine, some meet speedy deletion, others should be discussed at RfD. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. I was considering 'reviews' strictly in terms of article quality but this helps me understand NPP much better. Thank you. Soni (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always feel free to ask when you're confused about something, it's how one gets to learn. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow up Q, what's autopatrolled and will getting that userright allow me to not see a bunch of review notifications each time I do a move/make a new page? A quick browse at Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled doesn't tell me clearly enough if I qualify for it, I just would like to see fewer watchlist notifications.

I want to say I've never seen these new shiny toys before, but my memory is probably shoddy. Soni (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So autopatrolled is a right that basically means that anytime you create a page (or move one), it isn't normally in the NPP queue (there's a specific setting where people can see creations by autopatrolled users but people don't usually look at it because the backlog is bad enough as it is). A similar process (that involves notifications because it's patrolled by bot and is limited to redirects) exists at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. The autopatrolled right is really only given to people who have a history of creating at least 25 "clean" articles (so no maintenance tags) and don't have a history of other issues that would cause concern (examples: copyright violations or a non-negligible amount of articles deleted through AfD or other venues). Does that help clear things up for you? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think so. I don't think I create that many articles so I guess I'll live with a few extra notifications for now. Thanks Soni (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Just to be clear, it's not the article that's getting reviewed (the reviewed status moves with it), it's the new redirect you created at the old title. NPP also reviews redirects. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about a link with "chrome extension" in a reference

This is probably not an issue, but could someone let me know if a reference starting with "chrome extension" is safe to open? I think it is going to load special software to view an unusually formatted link and this doesn't sound like something I want to do. See Msunduzi Municipal Library. Thanks and greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone copied the wrong url. I've fixed the url to what was intended. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a PDF, but unfortunately it is downloading at an abysmal rate and I can't yet verify how big it is. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Gender, Foreign Sources, and WP:MAY24

For WP:MAY24 (I'd prefer the format WP:MAY2024) I decided to focus on the category Women inasmuch as theirs is a historically underrepresented category. On the one hand articletopic:women incategory:"Articles lacking sources from December 2009" seemed like a good chunk. On the other hand Christian Albert, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp, et al. are guys. On the gripping hand some articles are sans references in English because the only references are other languages, and sometimes in one only. What is the policy? kencf0618 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What's WP:MAY24/WP:MAY2024? I think those are both redlinks. Also what's the question exactly? I am not sure I understand. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024. – Hilst 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: Are you looking for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles? This is the talk page of Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol – articles from December 2009 are far outside our purview.

Though incidentally, it doesn't matter what language sources are in, as long as there are sources: see WP:NONENG. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kencf0618 It's a useful help to readers if references in other languages also use the "trans-title=" field to add the title translated into English, so readers can get a feel for what is being cited. Similarly, if the ref includes a quote, "trans-quote=" should be used to show readers the English translation of the quote. PamD 13:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

For our (backlog drive) purposes then one or two foreign references would suffice, preferably to reference works. Thanks, all. kencf0618 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends whether the purpose in editing is to tick boxes for a backlog drive or to improve the experience for the reader. PamD 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not mutually exclusive! I like getting citation fu right, and translating (say) the title of a foreign reference work is a simple matter. kencf0618 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You did take the point that you are on the wrong notice board? Ingratis (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request and leaving pages unreviewed

Hi all. I've been granted the NPP permissions at the beginning of this month, and while I have not been able to be as active as I had hoped to, I've done a few reviews now. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated.

But aside from that, I have a question. I've read nearly all the resources regarding NPP, including all the links found on WP:NPP and my understanding of the scope of the role is to a) quickly identify and take action against any egregious content being added (spam, attack pages, copyvio) and b) assess whether pages that don't fall within the scope of criterion a) are likely to survive a deletion discussion if they were to be nominated (if the answer is yes, then the page should be marked reviewed), and to improve them to meet this standard where possible, or to list them for CSD/PROD/AFD where not possible. I've mainly based my decision-making on c:File:NPP flowchart.svg.
Yet, I seem to encounter quite a number of unreviewed pages where experienced NPP patrollers have clearly looked at the page, and even made improvements (adding categories, tagging, other improvements) and yet chosen not to mark the page reviewed where in my estimation, the page is sufficiently good to mark reviewed. This is giving me pause, as it is making me questioning my judgement. I read the page, look at relevant info, decide that the page should be reviewed, and then I see evidence to indicate that somebody who is clearly much more experienced than me seemingly didn't agree with my assessment.
Can anyone shed some light on why experienced reviewers seem to often leave pages unreviewed? Am I misunderstanding the criterion/decision-making for when a page should be marked reviewed?

Sorry about the wall of text, and any feedback or input would be much appreciated. Melmann 20:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is common to leave borderline pages in the queue for a more experienced reviewer with a grasp of how AFDs usually go in that topic area to review. However if you're comfortable with your GNG/SNG/source analysis/notability analysis for an article, feel free to take appropriate action (AFD, mark as reviewed, etc.) You can also AFD a small number of articles you're less comfortable with and pay attention to the AFD outcomes to help self-calibrate.

Feel free to link to specific borderline pages here if you'd like a more detailed response. If anyone was willing to review my patrol log and offer any feedback, it would be much appreciated. is really broad and you are more likely to get useful feedback if you link one or two articles. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

One other possibility on those unreviewed pages is when the NPP'er tags it for issues which could cause it to fail NPP, to give article creator(s) a chance to fix the issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Complete list of older articles

Does NPP only display new articles up to 4 months old? Is it possible to get a complete list of articles created before 4-5 months, sorted by WikiProject or even creation date? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib, you can use Misplaced Pages:NPPSORT and NPP Browser. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You can use Special:NewPagesFeed -> set filters. There's a date range picker in there that should help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)