Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Awards/Archives/1

Backlog of barnstars
It looks like barnstars haven't been awarded for some time. They were last awarded in 2018, for reviews done in 2017. I'll start the work on the barnstars for 2018, but in order not to dilute their value by overloading talk pages with barnstars, i was thinking that there should be a week between each year's awards. Also for the first awards, I'll will be bugging the current co-ordinators and Kudpung a lot. Just warning you guys in advance. Post that, i expect to have got the hang of things. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks but I don't think it is necessary to go back 4 years. Some users will have received barnstars already. You could send a simple thank you template to everyone who participated in NPP between 2018 and 2022 if you wish. Polyamorph (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer of the year (2021)
I wasn't sure what date ranges were used previously, but since the award is supposed to be given on the 5th of November, I'm going with 1 November 2020 to 31 October 2021. For that date range, the following are the top 5 reviewers, using this quarry: I assume that the bot is out of contention for this. I'm leaning towards John B, because his article count is much greater than anyone else's. This needs the scrutiny of two co-ordinators, so MB and Novem Linguae, your input is needed. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I agree that we don't need to award the cup to the bot. The documentation for this award doesn't seem great. Are we allowed to "double award" it or should we strive for a new person every year? Are we supposed to look at total count or at article (non-redirect) count? We should peek at some talk page archives and see if there are any rules or precedents. Just going off my gut, I'd lean toward Mccapra because he has never received the cup before, but all the others have. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not for me to say, because I'm not a coord, but I watch this page. I created  the Reviewer_of_the_Year in 2017 along with most of the other barnstars and I never laid down any rules or precedents because I thought common sense would rule. Redirects are generally less contentious than articles.  NPP is mainly understood to be concerned with brand new articles of which a very high % are junk, therefore my instinct would be to use articles as the criterion. Bots obviously don't get awards. I don't see any reason to deny a user the trophy if they win it several times. We don;t say to Olympic sportspeople 'You can't get gold this year because you got it last year' or tell Manchester United they cant have the FA Cup 2 years in a row. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree no bots, and articles only for reviewer of the year (I have been pushing for all stats to list articles/redirects separately because they are so different). There is a separate redirect barnstar - let's just give that out automatically to the highest redirect reviewer (obviously Rosguill), and maybe a different version to everyone who has reviewed a lot of redirects (perhaps 5k). On the time period, why don't we change it to calendar year just to keep it simple. Where did Nov 5 come from? This isn't the government budgeting office or anything. I also agree that we should repeat awardees if they have earned it. Then there won't be anything subjective. As long as the person isn't disqualified because we found out there were too many quality issues, it should go to the person on the top of the list. MB 05:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it more, I agree with you both that double awarding is better. We should also pick an exact timeframe (i.e. Jan 1 - Dec 31, or anything really as long as it's consistent) and stick with it. We should also document both of these norms (articles not redirects, the date range) on the awards page. Firming up these norms will allow folks to become competitive in a good way, keeping track of their stats and (if desired) doing extra reviews in order to try to win the cup. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * November 5 - Can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure i saw somewhere that Nov 5 was when the NPP user right was created, and this award was given (/supposed to be given) on that day. We can skip this tradition and go for the calendar year, if we want. I'll add the article-only stats for 2021, just to see if there is much difference. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Top Reviewers for 2021 - articles-only: -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I created the New Page Reviewer Right on 114 October 14, 2016. I can't remember where the 5 November came from. Check out the dates of creation of the barnstars - but at around that time I created a whole host of different pages, sub pages, and images for NPP, and largely rewrote the tutorial. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew it was there somewhere: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 16. Relevant quote: "This award is given out on the 5th of November of each year to mark the anniversary of the roll out of the New Page Reviewer right." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is now a ubox for cup winners. Perhaps they would like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC):


 * Thanks, I'll be sure to mention it to the winner. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , hang on for a moment, I'll see if I can the tpl made for it and a couple of better ideas.
 * , you kindly created the suite of new NPP ubx for us. My original idea for this one was to have one  for each  year like this. Due to committments in RL I don't have time to do the tinkering right now. I was wondering if you might like to continue with it so that they can be transcluded and include the (verify) link to New pages patrol/Awards. For a task such such as NPP, ubx are very motivational, it would be great if you could help us again. Feel free to improve my design. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's been done., thanks for doing the first one. I've done the rest and I'm inviting the previous winners to put their UBX on their up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So far we're in agreement about the following: a) no barnstars/award for bots, b) the main awards and barnstars for article reviews only (since there are separate awards for redirects), c) no problem with a person getting the Reviewer of the Year Cup more than once (i'll document these in the awards page) and d) JohnB to get the cup for 2021. (I'll make the announcements tomorrow, to give some space between this and the backlog barnstars). One last thing is the time range for the cup: Should we go for the traditional Nov5-Nov4 OR the calendar year? I'm usually a sucker for tradition, but the calendar year does make things a bit simpler. Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with a, b, c, d. Time range, as I said before, I prefer calendar year to keep it simple. MB 03:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, calendar year is probably best. More intuitive. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Off topic discussion: speed of reviewing
Off topic, but which has concerned me fo a very long time: Despite having been deeply involved in NPP and its research for 14 years, try as I may, I still find it hard to understand how some editors can patrol at the rate of one article every few seconds, unless they are only selecting short stubs, i.e. going for the low hanging fruit. I would like to watch a screencast of some of these highly prolific reviewers at work, maybe we could learn something. Way back in the very early days when every user including absolute newbies could patrol pages (if they wanted to), and the quality was abominable,, , and I were the busiest patrollers and at one time together we reduced a monumental backlog but I'm not sure how we did it. Maybe it's something that can be looked into. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's been way too long since I've done a true NPP session, I'm feeling like I should do that again for a day or two. Once you have the ability to delete things it's hard to hold back from just doing it yourself, I think spending a little time doing it the way I had to before becoming an admin would be informative; I used to be able to reel off ~2K a month and clear out 50 pages in 10-15 minutes, and it was strangely enjoyable. In part I could work through pages at the rate I did because my reading speed is way higher than normal (thanks to The Big A that comes at quite a price), but I also noticed patterns; in particular, I got very adept at recognizing both spam and what actually constitutes a "credible assertion of notability". It's hard to explain soft skills like that, but they're tangible to anyone who's been on either end of NPP. And besides, seeing the good new articles coming in is itself a lot of fun; even though I'm no fan of kids stuff (happily unmarried without children) I enjoyed helping iron out the article Chihiro Iwasaki, and I never would have if I hadn't happened to be doing NPP when it came down the pipeline. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your input . Soft skills like that are what make a good reviewer but it can take 1000s of reviews and/or years to get there. It's a bit like the skills for some of the admin tools and interpretation of our oft ambiguous and contradictory policies and guidelines. Remember that long walk and talk we had about NPP on Governer's Island in NY all those years ago when I was in the US? I agree that if one lines up the pages in tabs first, about 3 a minute is the max that anyone can sensibly do - with a lot of skill and in-depth knowledge of policies, and using a desktop computer (preferably a 27" iMac 😉). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC):
 * Yes, I remember what you said. It sounded about right then, and it does now. This is a very easy area to get way out over your skis, and even a few misfires can lead to a lot of wasted effort from several editors. Since it's been so long I'm thinking that if I do it again I'll have to more consciously think about the process, that might help with trying to quantify things. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no where near the top for numbers of reviews per year, but I often do like to do them in batches with a line of tabs open. Alas I only have a 25" screen though rather than 27". :) I also admit I sometimes skip over ones I think will take me longer to make a decision on! I also generally limit myself to biographies when doing batches rather than just random topics. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

DannyS712 bot
I went ahead and awarded DannyS712 a barnstar for the incredible amount of useful work his redirect bot does for us. I feel that should definitely be recognized, even if the bot does not technically qualify for the Reviewer of the Year cup. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

New Barnstar?
The Bronze Award is for 1000 reviews (and around 35 people are eligible). I'd like to see a new award (iron maybe) for people who do one per day (or 360 in a year). It's great to have very active reviewers, but I think we should also encourage more people to just do a moderate level of reviewing. If there were an award for 360, it would only go to another 40 people at present. Any comments? MB 00:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Some people think barnstars are silly, but others including myself think they can be nice little motivation boosters. I don't mind having more. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Minimal resources for positive vibes. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - it would be very good to give more encouragement to mid-range reviewers. Ingratis (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

How's this? –– FormalDude   talk   05:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * 1) I believe there are more than enough barnstars for NPP already and I don't believe anyone has looked there or on the master coordination page recently.
 * 2) IMO The results of the July backlog drive need to be first published here.
 * 3) Someone really needs to declare themselves as being part of the coord team who will take care of this (?, ?); nobody has bothered with the barnstars for a long time.
 * 4) To avoid clutter on this talk page, this discussion (or mini RfC) should preferably be held at the Awards talk page and moved there.
 * 5) There is also another list on a user sub-page that will be helpful, and which with should be moved as a new section to the NPP Awards page, under a 'collapse' bar.
 * 6) I understand and respect 's opinion. I don't think the original idea of barnstars was silly either, but IMO over the years the value of barnstars has in general been diluted through over use and the quick access to them through all the 'WikiLove' scripts. But that's just my opinion - I'm old and grouchy.
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * (1) This is a new one for "moderate" reviewing activity.
 * (2) That should be done by the backlog drive coordinators. This should happen soon.
 * (3) If you mean take care of non-backlog drive barnstars, yes that is what MPGuy2824 has volunteered to do.
 * (4) The awards talk page is inactive/empty, so not a good choice. I think there is support for a 360/year barnstar, so this should wind down soon.
 * (5) Yes, probably can/should, with permission, move that list into NPP space. MB 07:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Along with our unreviewed backlog, we also seem to have an award backlog. ;-) I'm on this, but i don't want to steal the thunder from the Backlog drive awards. Let those be done first and the newsletter be sent. In the meantime, i'll talk to ICPH about moving his sub-page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

, I wouldn't say the talk page is inactive, it just hasn't been used yet - that's not quite the same thing. I don't recall holding an RfC when I designed the first set of barnstars for NPP (and even then I thought I had created too many). There certainly is an award backlog; the entire NPP system has had no active coordination for years after I retired from doing it for years and then and  moved on until you and NL thankfully stepped in ,and I'm glad that MPGuy has also accepted to do some of the work, but like NPP itself, coordinating it all is a joyless set of tasks that gets taken for granted by our huge pool of 750+ highly active patrollers, and gets no thanks or recogniton.

That talk page is the ideal location for such a Barnstar discussion. But where is the July 2022 Backlog sub page and who are the coords? There is of course this new madness on Wikipedia that every single detail of anything has to be decided by an RfC - that's one of the reasons why there is little progress on WMF support for bugs in the system - one community member put a halt to the process at Phab on one bug by telling them he didn't agree with a consensus that had already been reached twice. Phab will look for any excuse to avoid doing anything for NPP although the WMF created the system despite what the BoT claims on their Zoom conferences. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/July_2022. The awards for those are being given out right now, by zippybonzo. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Alternative proposal Rather than creating yet another award, what about just rescaling the existing ones to make them easier to achieve? Has anyone ever won the Osmium Award? e.g. make bronze 365 in a year, silver 1000 in a year, gold 2000, etc. Note: I am supportive of barnstars in general. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Osmium star has been won before (by Boleyn and Onel5969). Even for 2021, 3 reviewers are eligible to get it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree - Very sensible! I've always assumed that these were just "carrot on a stick" awards anyway - impossible to reach but held out as if in some way aspirational. Better to make something useful out of them. Ingratis (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of spreading out the criteria for the existing awards (e.g. lower the criteria) and would be fine with that as well. I would even suggest making the lowest award 100, so more casual patrollers have a chance to receive them. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support A number of reviewers like myself may sometimes be busy IRL and not have the time to do thousands of reviews per year. This could definitely be a motivational boost; one review per day is much more manageable and currently goes unnoticed by many. I would also support rescaling as long as a similar high bar is kept for the "ultimate" reward for most prolific reviewer. Complex / Rational  13:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * All active patrollers should get some positive feedback to thank them for their efforts. The emphasis should be on encouraging participation at any level because the main issue seems to be that there are lots of nominal members who don't do anything at all.  The existing approach encourages an elitist, high-score mentality which tends to result in burn-out of the winners and alienates the losers.  We want lots of steady tortoises rather than one exhausted hare. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * agree w/ above editor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Anything we can do that motivates new users is good for the community. I can support something like this. I love my goats and kittens but if we pivoted in that direction I wouldn't be able to support it. This as it stands is a great idea.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - and thank you for taking the initiative.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar for all top 100 reviewers
There were some suggestions in the above discussion on awarding another barnstar to reviewers who complete more than 100 reviews in a year. I found an alternative: A previous coordinator,, was awarding the New Page Patroller's Barnstar to reviewers in the top 100 list, who weren't eligible for the higher-level awards. My suggestion is to re-instate this practice, instead of creating a new barnstar, with the caveat that the reviewers have also done a minimum of 100 reviews in the year. Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, yes, fine to make use of this existing barnstar. MB 14:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Ninja
As we've decided to give the other barnstars for article reviews only, we are left with only one award for redirect reviews: Redirect ninja. I'm starting two (somewhat independent) threads for this. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

New redirect award
MB had a suggestion to create another award (either higher or lower than Redirect Ninja). That way we can award the higher one to the top redirect reviewer and the other one to the next few redirect reviewers in the list. I'm kind of neutral on whether this is needed, but i'll go with the consensus. If we decide for this, then we need a name for the new award. Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One idea for the name: Redirect Ninja Master. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Lower threshold for the awards
We need to choose a number of redirects above which the award/s would be given. Leaving aside the bot, here are the top 10 redirect reviewer numbers for 2021: I left out the names, since it shouldn't matter for this discussion. My suggestion would be a number such that about 4-5 redirect awards are given out in a year. In which case, the number would be >=2000 redirects reviewed. We can even go to 1000, but I'm opposed to anything below that. Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support all. One "master level" award and four others for redirects sounds about right to me. Of course, if the number is fixed at 2,000, there could be more or less in other years but that's not a problem. There are lots of barnstars for article reviewers; we shouldn't neglect to notice the effort of redirect reviewers. MB 04:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Barnstars and redirect awards for 2021

 * Here are the top redirect reviewers for 2021, who are eligible for awards.
 * Here are the top article reviewers for 2021, who are eligible for awards.

Please have a glance at both the tables, to see if there is anyone who we shouldn't give the award to. I'm leaving this here for atleast 3-4 days while I look at the folks in the list for any obvious issues. I'll assume that awarding indef-blocked users (e.g. Amkgp) is out. But, what else should I be looking for? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Should be OK to give the bot awards that aren't the Reviewer of the Year. I'm OK with removing blocked users from the list. Here is a query to help with that: . I tried to do a query that hides blocked users completely instead of displaying "1" but couldn't quite crack it. You can go to WP:QUERY for that one if you want. Cryptic hangs out there and he's a wizard with SQL queries. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the query. I got it to work (without the blocked column and users) on my quarry, using a "where ipb_sitewide IS NULL". There is also, a retired admin, who seems to have requested a username change. I'll remove them from the list too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK to give the bot awards that aren't the Reviewer of the Year: Wait, that would mean that the bot gets Redirect Ninja Master? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot about that one since it's new. Nope, the #1 type awards should go to non-bots, imo. But the other awards can go to bots to show appreciation to the bot creators. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah so, Redirect Ninja for the bot. I'm ok with that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Barnstars for 2018
I've got this list of reviewers who did 1000 or more reviews in 2018 from this quarry:

I've removed this section. The updated list can be found at New pages patrol/Awards -MPGuy2824 (talk)

If anybody notices someone who should not be given the appropriate award, please tell me. I'll be waiting for a week to pass after the Backlog drive barnstars, before doing anything with these, so no rush. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to ping every one of us? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I just meant to link the usernames. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ignore me if you already know this, but there's a template called No ping that may come in handy in the future. Thanks for compiling this. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure barnstars were already awarded after that backlog drive. Why are you sending them out again? Polyamorph (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't for a backlog drive but covers all reviews done for the year (2018, in this case). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I oppose this. Several users will have received these awards already, although this was inconsistent I don't see the point in handing out barnstars this far back. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The stats are interesting and revealing but I don't think there's much point in awarding barnstars 4 years in arrears. No one seems to have complained and at the end of the day time spent on reviewing more new articles is even more important than handing out awards, although I say it myself. Fairly important however is to update the Reviewer of the Year cup for the missing 2021, and to send out the promised barnstars for the last backlog drive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think is sending or finished sending out backlog drive barnstars. I already received mine. Anyway, if 2018 is too far back, maybe we should only send out for 2021. Then pause until Jan 1, 2022. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess enough people are opposing this, that we should put it on hold. The discussion is still open though. If by the end of August, there isn't much vocal support, we'll shelve the idea of giving out barnstars for 2018, 2019 and 2020. In the meantime we can move on to Reviewer of the Year for 2021, followed by Barnstars for 2021. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good plan :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Somehow this page fell off my watchlist and I hadn't seen this. I said in the newsletter that they would be retroactively awarded because I thought that was the plan. I'm not sure it's a bad idea. Sure, some people think it is silly. But there are a lot of editors who do file them away on their user pages (instead of just deleting them), so some people like being noticed. There was that discussion about more rewards for more moderate activity (100/year, 360/year) and/or rescaling all the barnstars. If someone gets an unexpected 100 review barnstar for 2019, it just might motivate them to do more this year. I agree it wouldn't do much to retroactively give out the crown (top) level awards - those people are either still committed or have left. But I suggest we finalize any restructuring/new award levels and then reconsider this. MB 05:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the restructuring/new award levels would only apply going forward, and keep the old levels for anything back-dated? I very much support the idea of retroactively awarding, though I'm not sure how far back it should be done - 2018 does seem like a long time ago. Part of me is tempted to suggest back to 2020, though partly for the reason that's when I got my perm for NPP. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I really don't see a lot of opposition here. Polyamorph is opposed. Kudpung just said he "doesn't see the point". I believe showed support elsewhere and I would say is at worst neutral. I do want to consider this further. As a first step, why don't you generate the tables for 2018, 2019, and 2020. (they can be labeled as - eligible or something like that). Even if the final decision is not to actually issue them, I see no harm in listing who met the criteria. MB</b> 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirmed that I have no strong opinion either way. If we do move forward, anyone that has raised objection here, perhaps we can opt them out of receiving. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking we could announce in the newsletter to everyone beforehand with an opt-out link. Although this seems like a lot of trouble when they could just revert them in one-click.
 * I did go through the 2018 preliminary list of 44 and found 19 of those are still NPP active (on the top 100 list of the last 365 days). Of the remaining 25, 17 are still quite active on WP, just not NPP. Only two no longer have the perm. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 20:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They've all been (accidentally) pinged to this talk page section. So I think we can assume the ones that care enough to opt out already made a comment. ICPH makes a good point about awarding barnstars to inactive NPPs/non-NPPs... it could possibly inspire them to come back. So trying to avoid giving barnstars to "inactive" NPPs is not necessarily something we have to avoid doing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. I was just giving the stats, not implying we shouldn't give them to the inactive reviewers. I think just the opposite and agree with ICPH. There are more inactive NPPs than active on this list, so yes - there are a lot of people to inspire.
 * 2. The accidental pings only went to the prelim 2018 list which only went down to Bronze. There will be a lot more if we include Iron and the 100-level NPP barnstar, and do so for all three years. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 21:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this: I'll go backwards through the years, and if any folk reply to their barnstar/award with a message saying that they are against it, they can be considered to be opted-out for the year/s before that. For now I'll consider only Polyamorph to be opted out. I can mark such folk with a note in the Prev Winners section so that if they change their minds later, then can still be awarded. Works for everyone? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We should at least do that. We could also put a notice in the next newsletter saying we are ready to do this and ask anyone that doesn't want them to let us know. If we did that, the awards wouldn't go out for another month. Something else I would like to consider, if it's not too much work, is going through the names like I did earlier and finding the ones that are still around, but just not very active reviewers (I found 17 on the original list). Then we could send those people a different message with the barnstar, like "Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We notice you haven't been very active here recently, and hope you will consider increasing your participation. The backlog is relatively high and we could really use your help. Regardless, thanks again for your past effort. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Easily doable with a query. We just need to decide on the time period and the number of reviews done. I'd suggest upto 10 reviews in the past 6 months. I'll just have to remember not to bug them with the same message if they received it before. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

My queries are getting 11 folks with less than 10 reviews in 6 months, and 14 folk with less than 20 reviews in 1 year. I'd suggest the sending messages to the latter, larger group. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the list of eligible winners at New pages patrol/Awards. The numbers will be different from the above list, since we are only counting article reviews for the barnstars now (and redirect reviews have separate awards). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. We should have a message for everyone too:


 * "Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more."

or (for those who have done <20 reviews in the last year):


 * Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and/or reply to this and we won't send you any more. Also, we notice you haven't been very active here recently, and hope you will consider increasing your participation. The backlog is relatively high and we could really use your help. Regardless, thanks again for your past effort.

I think with this opt-out message, we should go ahead as you suggest and do one year at a time. "MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years." was in the August newsletter and no one said anything, so maybe PM is the only one.

, all good here too? Feel free to improve the messages if you see anything. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 02:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of giving out the awards for 2020, but i'll add this message for the ones that i've yet to do. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also go back and add the message for the ones that i did earlier. I'll also be truncating the message a bit when i reach 2018, since there won't be any more late awards after that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks all. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Backlog drive awards
Should we take into account backlog drive barnstars when awarding the annual ones? I was looking at the November 2021 barnstars and it seems that at least a few people got (or should have received) a Patroller's Barnstar for their participation in the backlog drive, and then got the roughly equivalent NPP Barnstar again for the same reviews (I noticed that a few people hardly had any more reviews for the year than during the drive).So we should probably amend the instructions to say that if a Barnstar is given during a backlog drive, an editor must reach a higher level to receive one for the year. It's too late to apply this to 2021, but we can start doing it now. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 00:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Its the same award for 100 reviews, (so these folks would have to hit 360 during the year to be eligible). We could consider 500 during the backlog drive, to be equivalent to 360 for the year (so these folks would have to hit 1000 during the year). For 2022, only about 20-30 names will need to be checked (>100 reviews during the backlog). I'll see if the numbers for the backlog drives before 2021 were published anywhere. To the talk page archives! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I could only find two other backlog drives, both from 2018. I've added links to New pages patrol/Backlog drives. I was planning on going backwards for the awards, so next would be 2020, where this correction wouldn't need to be done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that 500 in a backlog drive means no annual barnstar unless they reach 1000. In a similar vein, the Cup winner should not receive a lower barnstar either - they already got the highest award. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 14:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the Cup winner should not receive a lower barnstar - Not sure that i agree with this. Even after our latest backlog drive, dr vulpes got an award for being the top reviewer, as well as another tier-based award. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not what I would expect. The top award is like the grand prize. You don't get every tier-based award, just the highest one you reach. The Cup is the highest of all. That's how I view it. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 03:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae, you haven't commented here, so I assume you concur with the gist of it. But do you think the cup winner should receive a Barnstar also for the same year. That seems to me to be redundant. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 01:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion. I think there's an argument for both giving away barnstars pretty freely (they don't cost us anything, they create motivation) and for reducing redundancy. Up to you guys :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

We'll go with MB's suggestion. If somebody changes their mind later, the missing barnstars can be given retrospectively. I'll make a section for Notes, with all these small things to take into consideration, that we've discussed on this page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

2018 awards

 * 1) 2018 has a similar problem to 2019: Onel5969 got Reviewer of the Year, but 2/3rd of their reviews were redirects. Given that, I propose that they should not be given the Redirect Ninja Master award also. Instead Semmendinger, who did the second-most number of redirect reviews should be given that award.
 * 2) The other ones seem fine to me, but again, I'll be waiting about a week to award these, so anybody interested has some time to look at this list and see if anyone should not be getting the associated award. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All looks fine to me. It seems no one else has complained about being given "old" awards, that's a relief. One more year to go. One question, why don't the Redirect tables include the number of redirects reviewed? <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 02:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've only got encouraging messages and Thanks, as yet. I'm not sure how the redirect numbers were missed out. I'll add them. Will have to add explanatory note if the winner has a smaller number than the second-place. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ added the redirect review totals. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

2019 awards

 * 1) For 2019, Rosguill got Reviewer of the Year, but their reviews were mostly for redirects. Given that, I propose that they should not be given the Redirect Ninja Master award also. Instead Onel5969, who did the second-most number of redirect reviews should be given that award.
 * 2) DannyS712 and his bot are both eligible for Redirect Ninja. I'd guess that he was testing code for his bot, using his own account. I think only the bot should get the award, since the code is essentially the bot.
 * 3) The other ones seem fine to me, but I'll be waiting about a week to award these, so both of you have some time to look at this list and see if anyone should not be getting the associated award. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * All looks good to me. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 06:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
While looking at this, I thought it would be fun/interesting to have a "Hall of Fame" also. Just a table listing everyone who has received a top-level award (silver and higher, and Redirect Ninja), with all their top-level awards from all years. I'm guessing it would have about 20 lines. Totally up to you. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 06:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's revisit the Hall of Fame after i'm done with the 2018 awards. I've added it to my todo queue. If some wikiproject has this already, please send me a link, so that i don't have to think up a format from scratch. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No I haven't seen this anywhere else. But a simple table would do: <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 17:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This looks doable; lets see till what tier we can add winners before it becomes too unwieldy. This will be after the 2018 awards though, which will be in a week or so. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * DYK does have a table listing all the awards for an individual at List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_DYKs, but its not quite the same as that shows a check for each level reached in a progression based on number of DYKs. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 17:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MB, I've created a hall of fame for folk who have gold or higher (included Redirect Master in that). Skipped silver, otherwise there would be about 40 rows. My problem with it is that it has information that is repeated in other parts of the Awards page. Alternatively, the hall of fame can be for reviewers who have done 20,000 article reviews all-time (please check this query). This can be kept updated annually, and my guess is that 0-2 reviewers enter the hall of fame annually. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it. We could reduce the size of the icon to make the table smaller. You really can't make it out at this size anyway and have to hover to see which award it is. In looking at it, it should probably only include people that have two or more awards. That would cut out the bottom six. What would happen then if we added silver back in, but with the above change? Only include two silvers, silver and gold, etc. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 02:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 16 rows with silver. Added it to the same page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is good. It's not too big, and as you said, probably won't grow much (0-2/year) The only other suggestion I have is on the order. I can't tell what the order is now. Probably should be alphabetical, or by total number of awards (highest first). Thanks for doing this. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 03:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you think about my alternate proposal "hall of fame can be for reviewers who have done 20,000 article reviews all-time" too? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of overlap. Everyone who has 20,000 lifetime articles reviews is already listed, except for two. When you say alternate proposal, do you mean use this instead of or in addition to the multi-award table? If you mean in addition, that is fine. There could be another table after the H-O-F awards table with the leaders-by-lifetime-counts. We could just call the entire thing the H-O-F. It could be those with more than 20k, or it could be fixed at the top 20 highest. That is another way of looking at the top reviewers. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 04:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave the lifetime table then. I've removed the table with the larger images and added a new table where i think the order (olympic medal table) is more intuitive. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I like your new table, that is another way of displaying the info. I made a few formatting changes to the tables. Since we have no space constraints, We could still add top reviewers by total review count as a third table - wouldn't that recognize a few people that have not qualified for the HOF because their work was spread out over more years? <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope we are just planning to link this page from the main Awards page, and not transclude it (3 tables is too much otherwise). I've added the third table (leaderboard). Yes, it includes folk whose work has been more spread out. I'm making this a top-10 leaderboard, instead of 20K+ reviews. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it should be on the awards page. That page isn't too long. Or it could be collapsed by default like the yearly winners sections. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Collapsing works for me. I've added it just above the Previous winners section. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick suggestion: may want to add the criteria to get into the hall of fame to the /Awards#Hall of Fame page or the /Awards/Hall of Fame page. Nice job with it, I like the idea. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One is a top-10 and the other two have attached footnotes. Not enough? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeap I completely missed the footnotes. My suggestion would be to promote the footnotes to prose that is placed right before the corresponding table. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 awards
Could you take a look at New pages patrol/Awards/Previous winners/2022 to see if there are any issues. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Nice to see that the usual power users stuck around and continued with their great work, one power user that had quit returned, and that some folks I have barely heard of are towards the top of the list, working quietly on the important work of keeping the backlog under control. Great job to everyone. A real team effort all around. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me too. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 15:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the last NPP award is to I dream of horses for 151. Did you stop the query at 150? Surely there must be reviewers in the 100-149 range; the NPP standard barnstar is for 100+, right? <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 21:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Awards/Archives/1, we had decided to only award to the top 100 reviewers (who also get over 100 reviews). I applied this rule for the previous year's awards as well. I realise this isn't mentioned on the main awards page, which i can fix.
 * I'll start posting the rest of the awards anyway, since both of you have ok'ed them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't remember that. Also, Onel's name is not on the image for the cup. Didn't you add Johnb last year? <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 02:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the image. But i'd guess some sort of caching of the old thumbnails. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)