Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

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. –&#8239;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.  Pam  D  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. –&#8239;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. –&#8239;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(or here) (or here) (or here)  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 Wikipedia'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)

Flowcharts
The complaint above was not expressed very nicely but does hit on a relatively frequent point of feedback about 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? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Simplified
Do you find '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. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 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. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 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) [Originally I put this comment in the wrong place, but it's the simplified chart I use!]  ~ 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(or here) (or here) (or here)  22:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Detailed
Do you find '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. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 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. Pam D  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. –&#8239;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 &#183; c)  buidhe  00:34, 9 May 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. ZsinjTalk 00:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Earwig won't check stuff like Google books or Internet Archive (books or websites). I've seen quite a few copyvios from those sources being let through recently, even some with obvious text formatting issues that should have been a red flag. For example, words with hyphens in the middle where there aren't normally hyphens is a clear sign that the text was copied from a digital scan of a book. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:35, 24 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 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)

Keep up the good work
Important as the NPP is, I've been doing my own thing as I go along. That includes NPP, but have not been keeping track of my stats. You won't see me posting over here much, but I want to say that the NPP is vital. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the XTools count of 1,192 NPP in my time on Wikipedia. My take, is that if a new article can be saved through NPP, then we did something worth while. NPP is often vital for assisting and retaining new editors. You all do an excellent job. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove my NPP flag
Remove my NPP flag, I'm done dealing with nonsense like this. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account", doesn't neet G11 I obviously don't know what I'm doing and should walk away. congrats you've finally driven me off, you might have some suggestions for how to fix the backlog at AfD and NPP since they are driving off participants.  // Timothy :: talk  16:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed the permission per your request. I realize that it is probably quite frustrating to have a csd nom declined, but if you ever change your mind and wish to participate in NPP again, feel free to let me know. Sometimes the heat of the moment can make things more intense. I doubt Bbb23's intention was to drive away AfD/NPP participants. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Bbb23 but I decline CSD-tagged articles fairly often when I disagree with the tagging, it seems like an inappropriate criteria or if it looks like PROD or AFD would be a more suitable form of deletion. In this case, this article was nominated for deletion consideration (Articles for deletion/Viraj Mithani). I never once thought of a decline as "driving off" an editor, we just have differing understandings of a particular CSD criteria. G11 is one criteria where differences seem most common, what seems "promotional" to one editor might not look like advertising/spam to the admin or editor reviewing the tagging. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with @Liz on . If an article meets the speedy deletion criteria the community has decided by consensus that it doesn't want to spend more of its time and instead prefers a lighterweight process. This is separate from "this article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, but may be appropriately deleted via PROD or AfD" as is the case for many A7 declines, for instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well: WP:NOTBURO. And I note it was speedily deleted all the same. Which somewhat exonerates . It also confirms the view that if admins are to be allowed to decide what is/is not to be deleted or kept, they should have some article-writing experience first.  ——Serial Number 54129  18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to what Clover wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I saw the original note here and went to check on the article. It was a mess (such language! as had noted) which I first tried to clean up and then, searching for references, found that there really was no there, there. So I sent it to AFD. Unanimous !votes to delete, including those who were in favour of it being speedied. In the end, it was deleted. Kind of wish Timothy had had a bit of a thicker skin, because they were right in essence after all, and I hope they choose to come back to NPP. After all, I think one needs the hide of a rhinoceros and the heart of a dove to stick around here for any length of time. Alls well that ends, I suppose. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-attributed translations
Just a reminder to check for non-attributed translations when reviewing, especially on longer articles. They are more common than you might think. Wikidata and Google are very helpful for checking if an article in another language exists. If there is an article on another Wikipedia, you can use Google Translate to see if the content matches the English article. If it does, add an edit summary attribution (similar to this one: ) and warn the translator with. If the content translated makes up a significant portion of the new article, consider adding to the talk page. C F A  💬  02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Clearfrienda Thanks for pointing this out. I would go as far as saying that, major problems warranting CSD or DRAFTIFY aside, this is the main issue I flag at NPP. Perhaps a button to easily address the issue (dummy edit to provide attribution + translated page in talk page + inform the editor of the violation) should be included in the Page Curation tool? Broc (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides notability issues, non-attributed translations are the most common problem I encounter during reviews. It's actually very time-consuming to check if an alternate-language article exists, if the English version is a non-attributed translation, then add the dummy edit, warn the user, and add the notice to the talk page. I assume this is why a lot of NPP reviewers often skip this step and a lot of translations go unnoticed. I would support an addition to Page Curation but someone is probably better off building a user script (like MoveToDraft) since tool changes are much more complicated to implement.  C F A   💬  16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote a starter version at User:Clearfrienda/scripts/AttributeTranslation. Less work than I thought, actually. if you're interested.   C F A   💬  02:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing that script - works like a dream! Josey Wales Parley 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting this section. Technically, the text snippet given above (as described at WP:TFOLWP) is appropriate for use as an edit summary only in the same edit which adds translated text to the article. When missing attribution is discovered later, then the instructions and model text to use can be found at WP:RIA. Further, if you don't have time or don't wish to add the missing attribution yourself or are unable to because it's not clear where the content was translated from, you can flag the article with Unattributed translation. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple of article info viewing questions
Is there a way to make the curation toolbar show up on a reviewed article? (for example in order to see/use the "metadata" button)

There is one way I know to find a previous deletion discussion for certain cases. Which is to hit the "previously deleted" button on the page feed. But that only works if it's in the new page feed and then sometimes doesn't work then (e.g. As-Salam al-Amiri (Kuwait) even though it says "previously deleted".  Is there a general way to see previous deletion discussions? North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks North8000 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There should be a link titled "Add to the New Pages Feed" in the tools section on the left of the page. That should do the trick and make the page curation bar show up. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, it also unreviews the article. So only do that if you want to unreview the article. I don't think there's currently a way to display the toolbar on a reviewed article that has fallen out of the feed. For example, if you wanted to place maintenance tags.
 * For the use case of previous deletions, I like the user scripts User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js (adds "prev del" and "prev afd" links by the article title if found) and User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DetectG4G5.js (displays alerts at the top of the page if it's a likely CSD G4 or G5 candidate). I also make the deletionFinder notifications more red using the code in User:Novem Linguae/common.css, line 1. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did see that and presumed that it unreviewed the article. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"experience moving pages"
Would anyone complain if I removed "Have experience moving pages in accordance with relevant guidelines" from WP:NPPCRITERIA? Experience with page moves certainly doesn't hurt, but most NPP-related titling issues are straightforward enough to be learned on the job, and it's not like WP:PERM/NPP requests are being declined as "not done; not enough experience moving pages". I certainly wouldn't want otherwise qualified editors to think they have to go spend a month or two at WP:RM before applying. (The criterion was apparently just copied from the page mover criteria, so I'm not sure how much thought went into it in the first place.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: I've long said I don't use this as a criteria when evaluating whether to grant someone the permission or not. I look to make sure they're not making moronic moves, but I don't expect everybody to have all of the naming conventions memorized. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support not necessary to be a good patroller (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support good to have but a newcomer can still function without it Josey Wales Parley 14:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The learning curve is manageable. There's no issue as long as applicants don't a track record of questionable/consensus-violating moves. Complex / Rational  14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Unnecessary hurdle and unnecessarily adds to "I'm not worthy" concerns/stress. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Confirm that this almost put me off of requesting NPP permission when I first looked into it. Doesn't seem necessary to do good work here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it. If anyone thinks further discussion is necessary, feel free to revert. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard cases
Is there a board/list for "hard" or "problematic" patrol cases that might require more eyes/more time to get to a consensus and get properly fixed up. Examples being Sergii Ivanov and Volodymyr Petrov (same creator), which are well created BLPs but filled with more challenging references/sources, and with some very tilted language. I don't feel that just tagging them is enough here? Or do I use the general noticeboards? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for calling this out. I left some notes on the creator's talk page at . There are also a large number of Facebook and YouTube sources, which can easily be seen with a citation highlighter userscript. Since this is a BLP, we should probably delete all the Facebook and YouTube citations and their associated text before we make any other decisions about the article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great thanks Novem Linguae. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao
I have just blocked, a reviewer since 2020, for undisclosed paid editing. Admins are welcome to email me for evidence, but the short version is that Umakant Bhalerao was marking articles about Indian corporations and businesspeople as reviewed in a way that made clear there was illegitimate coördination going on. The vast majority of his reviews are fine, but the ones in that topic area would definitely benefit from a second look. I've made a partial list of such articles at User:Extraordinary Writ/Articles to review; I don't know if we want to go over them individually or just put them back into the queue, but any help would be appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you're sure about the UPE part, putting them back in the queue is probably the most efficient way to handle it. Then we don't forget to review any, and we spread the re-review workload. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I often saw him reviewing Indian cinema-related articles, and all of those reviews were good. It's disappointing to learn that he was involved in undisclosed paid editing. I will shortly take a look at his reviews. – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I recall a recent "scandalous" news article where I believe they were accused of being extremely dubious in a manner I cannot quite recall. I also cannot recall where on enwiki I saw those details. Others may recall. I am reminded that there is no smoke without fire.
 * Might I suggest that, while each awaits review they be flagged with the UPE banner? Passing that review will/may allow that banner to be removed.
 * Putting them back in the queue is annoying, but ideal for efficiency. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to track this down. This may be a breadcrumb trail. Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity/Archive is one mention: There is another WP:MEAT group led by Umakant Bhalerao, operating similar to DMySon's interests (politics, geography, etc.) and their reviewing style/timecard match hints that they are most probably employed by German Kity company, so listing Umakant Bhalerao and their probable socks Michael_goms, Anthony Masc, Wikibablu, Jessy_lever, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Siddhart_pandey after this and this discussion here. Please do a through checkuser against these accounts and I strongly suspect there are probably many more such accounts (probably with reviewing rights). Balchandra Upendra (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC). I am searching for more. I make no comment upon the content of the allegation. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So far I have failed. I am sure it was in 2024, posted by an IP editor, possibly from a competing UPE group, and linked to a media article. Editors discounted it at the time. I am pretty certain it was to a "noticeboard" in the broadest sense of the word. @Extraordinary Writ, you may have a better recollection than I do? 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Getting closer, though from 2022: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190. There is also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 165 from 2020. Neither of these are the one I remember. Someone with a better spade than I have may enjoy the digging! I have run out of time for a couple of weeks. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I had seen the SPI and the COIN post, but I'm not aware of anything beyond that...maybe you're thinking of something else? If you do find it, let me know (or email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org if it involves an off-wiki news story). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Extraordinary Writ There's something that niggles. The off-will media story names three editors. I just can't find it. Perhaps your colleagues who also answer the paid-en email address can place it? 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly checked these articles and added some to the queue. I think all the remaining articles on this list should also be added back to the queue for a fresh review. – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Should NPRs perform a WP:BEFORE search before draftifying
I recently had a disagreement with @Jeraxmoira (at User talk:Jeraxmoira) regarding how a particular review, that of Draft:Takhteshwar_Temple was conducted. I am of the opinion that they should have conducted a WP:BEFORE search and simply tagged the page as needing more sources (or AFDed the page if no reliable sources were found since the article was over a month old). However, Jeraxmoira contends that NPRs are not required to do a BEFORE search before draftifying "unimportant/ low-interest" pages within 90 days. I would like to hear a third opinion/other opinions on this. Is one approach better/the accepted norm over the other? Also, should NPRs conduct a BEFORE search before draftifying pages that have been around in mainspace for a significant amount of time? <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 12:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no hard requirement and, if you think it through, it wouldn't make sense to have one. If a reviewer does a WP:BEFORE-style search for sources, there are two possible outcomes:
 * They find enough sources to support in article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should add the sources to the article
 * They don't find enough sources to support an article, in which case they shouldn't move it to draft – they should nominate it for deletion
 * So either way a WP:BEFORE → draft workflow doesn't make sense.
 * I do think it's good practice to follow WP:BEFORE if you have doubts about the availability of sources for a topic, but it's far too time-consuming to say NPPers "should" do so. If I have doubts about sourcing but don't have time to follow up on them, I usually tag the article with more sources and/or notability and move on, rather than move it to draftspace where it will get less attention, but a lot of people do the latter. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are more possible outcomes than that, for example if the search uncovers sources which appear to contain signficant coverage of the topic but are not accessible due to paywalls, not in local library holdings, etc then the article should either be kept without adding those sources directly to the article or draftified. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You could still add them as further reading or on the talk page. The point is that if you've established that sufficient sourcing probably exists (albeit behind a paywall or whatever), draftifying it on the basis of sourcing problems would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't add them to the further reading section unless you've actually seen their contents, yes you can go to the talk page but thats not adding it to the article. The point is that there are way more than two possible outcomes, I also don't see how draftifying it if you can't access the sources would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator... That again seems to assume a very limited scope which doesn't withstand basic scrutiny. For example with BLPs draftication can be a nice way to both preserve the privacy of a subject when you aren't sure if they're really notable but also gives people with access to sources time to improve the article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't add them to the further reading section unless you've actually seen their contents – sure you can, it's a very common place to stash potential sources for expansion.
 * I also don't see how draftifying it if you can't access the sources would be disingenuous of the reviewer and unfair to the creator – you dropped my caveat "on the basis of sourcing problems", which is important. What we're discussing here is draftifying for sourcing concerns, in which case yes, there are just two outcomes, described above. If you're moving something for BLP concerns or UPE or whatever WP:BEFORE is not really relevant. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In which case no there are not just two outcomes... As you already mentioned the editor could add the sources on the talk page but not in the article, so thats at least three and we can come up with more... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So since precision is apparently very important here, the two outcomes I'm referring to are "found enough sources" or "didn't find enough sources". The parts after the dash in both are not the important part. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And what about the outcome we spent so long discussing? Where its unclear if enough sources have been found? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's one or the other, your choice, and shouldn't be draftified either way. Thanks for stopping by. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can it be one or the other unless reviewers are omniscient? "Not sure" is going to be the answer much of the time, I agree that in general draftification isn't ideal... But I'm not sure I would say it shjould never be done by a reviewer. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't draftily for notability. If I've already done a before search, there's no use wasting the creator's time improving a non notable article; it should go straight to AfD. if the topic is found to be notable, just poorly sourced, adding a couple good sources and stubbing is less likely to get opposed than drafitifaction. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftification, for me, is rarely ever mostly not based on notability. It's about whether a page, in its current state, is fit for main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be a little based on notability? That is if a topic is clearly not notable it should be deleted since no amount of time/improvement would fix that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know... Maybe I should have thought more before I spoke because there's a level of nuance to it that I ignored in my reply, so thanks for calling me out @Barkeep49. I've tweaked my reply a bit, but I agree with you. Draftification is not a backdoor for deletion and its primary purpose is/should be to give people a place to work on pages with a subject that, with some cleanup or effort, may belong in main space at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO (not that I do it, I work in the "older than three months" part of the cue) it could be based on "non-established" notability rather than notability. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @North8000: I don't particularly like to do that myself. I usually stick to draftifying the pages with serious problems that make them unfit for main space and use it for only the most obvious of cases. If the notability is simply unclear and draftification might not be beneficial, I'd rather send it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (or others) Curious, how would you handle this common case?: Article is less than three months old, is about somebody who would commercially benefit from having an article (artist, performer, band, web personality etc.), does not meet any SNG criteria, pretty clearly has no or insufficient GNG sources in the article,  and a quick web search didn't turn up any. Your first guess is that they won't meet GNG, but it would take a lot of work to confirm that guess. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe there are many other parameters to be considered even in common cases i.e. COI, UPE, Sock etc., IMO
 * (For the above specified case) If there are insufficient GNG sources in the article and I believe they won't meet GNG, I would send it to draft with a custom note pointing to the relevant notability guidelines and asking for more sources (This process cuts down the time of reviewers doing WP:BEFORE rather than the author) . If it is moved back to main space without addressing the notability concern, I would check WP:BEFORE and send it to AfD.
 * Personally, I believe draftification gives the author a second chance before it is sent to AfD and it shouldn't be a big deal because the draftify notice clearly asks the author to move it to mainspace or submit it for review once the draft is ready. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My personal protocol is: If you're confident of COI/UPE, draftify. If there are zero sources, BLPPROD for person, draftify for band/other. Otherwise, WP:BEFORE and then AFD if insufficient sources found. Checking the first page Google News, Google Books, and whatever other searches you feel are appropriate for a WP:BEFORE hopefully wouldn't take longer than a couple minutes. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That happens to be my overall protocol as well, since I patrol more back of the queue stuff I have rarely found a use-case for draftifying pages over AFD or just tagging it for improvement. This discussion has been a bit of a eye opener and a primer on how other NPPers handle draftification tho. <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 13:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that a central point of my example is finding a way (= give them feedback and some time) to let the creator to do a deeper search for GNG sources than a NPP'er can do with limited time, where the NPPer's guess is that those sources probably don't exist. And draftifying is one way to do this, another is to tag it and leave an explanatory note and leave it unreviewed  to be reviewed at a later date. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally don't draftify because I work the older part of the que where it is not an option. But if I did, I would use it for the example I gave. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My response in general for a GNG-dependent article would be the same as Joe Roe's.   A few more notes: For a GNG-dependent article IMO an article creator should find GNG sources, and it's more reasonable to expect one of the zillions of article creators to do that work than to say that an overworked NPP'er "should" do that. Draftifying might be one way to set it up for that, so would tagging it which would typically give the creator time to find and add them, or after that time lapse to probably go to AFD if they don't.    Regarding this particular article I might have passed it is an edge-case under Ngeo, but that's just me. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the onus on new article creators is to provide sources, particularly to pass WP:GNG. I do think it's perfectly proper to draftify articles with no sources/too few sources/no notability (it's polite to do a quick search, but that's not requirement for 'a full BEFORE') - I've had a number of examples where the creator has worked (in peace) on the draft and it's gone back to mainspace and I have been happy to review those submissions on request to bypass the queue. And that's the process working AFAICS... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the method Alexanderamcnabb mentions above, that is also the way I would deal with this situation. Josey Wales Parley 16:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me too. That summarizes my posts. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sure a silly question ...
For some reason, I cannot find an explanation of the difference between "Patrolling" and "Page Curation" (for example, as distinguished in Database reports/Top new article reviewers). I am sure this is written clearly somewhere but I just cannot find it, and it is bugging me. thanks in advance. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, you're not the first one to be confused by this. The documentation you're looking for is at New pages patrol. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Aszx5000 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Where's the "Check for copyvio"?
This might seem silly, but where is the "Check for copyvio" link on the NPP toolbar? I haven't been doing patrol for a month but that tool seems to be gone now. Thank you! &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure if there was a dedicated NPP copyvio tool, though I have been using User:The Earwig/copyvios.js to add a "copyvio check" link to my main toolbar. Complex / Rational  01:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another option, which I prefer and use, is MoreMenu, which adds a bunch of useful links in addition to this tool in a drop-down. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 03:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js, which normally displays in the toolbar info pane, no longer displays? Perhaps we inadvertently broke it during the vue migration. Maybe an HTML class name changed. Cc – Novem Linguae  (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is it. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   03:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its broken, probably from the rewrite in Vue - I'll add this to my todo list --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

A few words about Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah article
The article Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah is not visible on Google. Please take a look at the article. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @ইউনুছ মিঞা It would be helpful to readers of en.wiki if the references showed the titles translated into English using the "trans-title=" parameter. This might make it easier for a new page reviewer to review the article. Pam  D  07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @PamD ok ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @ইউনুছ মিঞা Also note that in English ( at least in UK), a "police station" is a building, not an area. And the lead should tell us what country it is in. Pam  D  12:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your article is still unreviewed, and it can only be indexed on Google once a New Page Reviewer marks it as reviewed. Please note that unreviewed articles aren’t indexed by search engines for the first 90 days. After that, while the article will still be in our queue to remind us to review it, search engines will start indexing it. – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @DreamRimmer thank you. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It always rings alarm bells when an editors worries that an article is not visible on Google, and I wonder what their motives for writing the article are.

Looking at the article, which appears to be an unattributed machine translation of bn:ফারুকীয়া মদীনাতুল উলুম মাদরাসা, it seems written to promote the school rather than being a neutral article. To put the 100% success rate in examinations into perspective, only 17 students out of 500 - 600 student entered the exams. I'm sure most schools could get a 100% success rate if they only entered a small percentage of students into exams. Most of the content is unreferenced and I doubt there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG --John B123 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @John B123 All the information in the Farukia Madinatul Ulum Madrasah article is now correct. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , the article still needs citations to verify parts of the text, which are marked with citation needed tags. --John B123 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Poor form to patrol drafts I've substantially worked on?
So, I've been working on a project in which I find old drafts that are at risk of being taken to WP:G13 but which I think I have promise, and bringing them to mainspace. When I do so, I mark the articles as patrolled, which the software lets me do, since I didn't start the page. Should I be doing that? Mach61 12:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * From my experience, as long as you make an edit to the draft within the 6 months, it will be ok. However, if I notice I'm not really working on the draft then it's ok for the page to be deleted. The drafts can always be recovered per WP:REFUND. – The Grid  ( talk )  13:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a common question at WT:AFC. It's allowed. If you're feeling a bit iffy about the notability, feel free to leave it unmarked to get a second set of eyes. You are a newer patroller, so this might be a good idea for any that would be borderline if taken to AFD, just to make sure that no one can accuse you of anything later. used to patrol the 6 months unsubmitted AFC queue looking for promising drafts. He passed away and the practice mostly stopped, so it's nice to see someone resuming this and rescuing promising drafts :) – Novem Linguae  (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with this as long as the drafts are actually about notable topics and you clean them up enough to be mainspace-worthy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A few words about Professor Kamal Uddin Chowdhury College Articles
Professor Kamal Uddin Chowdhury College Article created 3 months ago but not reviewed yet. Please review. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about whether the statement that the institution has 15 toilets is really what our readers need to know. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 10:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Some words about Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar) article
The Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar) article has been completed and is requested to be reviewed. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @ইউনুছ মিঞা, thank you for creating these articles. I appreciate your contributions. Just to let you know, there is currently a backlog of 12,739 articles waiting for review. NPRs are working hard to get through them all, and each article is a priority. Therefore, requesting reviews doesn't speed things up, so it's best to avoid doing so. Thanks! – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm Autopatrolled, but please patrol Marc Raymond
No rush. I understand. I used to create a lot of redirects to species synonyms when I was working on insects, so I was given the Autopatrolled right even though I had almost no history of creating articles. An editor asked me to do some copy editing of a translation and after that I moved Marc Raymond to mainspace. It should be patrolled. Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey SchreiberBike; per your request, I've marked the article as unreviewed to place it into the queue, and another patroller will be around to review it in time. For future reference, you can use a link in the "Tools" menu to mark an article as unreviewed yourself if you feel that it requires additional attention. Thanks for your vigilance! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 21:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchreiberBike. We wrote a patch recently that lets autopatrolled users unreview their own articles. It should be a link called "Mark this page as unreviewed" in the toolbox, which is in the left menu in Vector 2010. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

BRFA to notify reviewers of AFDs for articles they have patrolled
I've opened a BRFA at Bots/Requests for approval/SodiumBot 2 to create a bot that will notify reviewers if a article they have reviewed is nominated for AFD. Thoughts, discussion ideas are welcomed. <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I like the idea and, noting @Novem Linguae's comment on the BRFA, I think there should be some way to opt in/out. Personally I would be interested to see any arguments made for deletion for pages I've reviewed, but I can see the side of the discussion against it. It's hard to imagine this runs afoul of any of the canvassing policies but I'd be curious if a note should be left at AfD notifying that the NPPer was notified (it's not like the AfD page indicates that the page creator was notified, but that's already assumed and baked in). I'm curious, are there any stats that show what percentage of pages that are nominated at AfD are reviewed/not reviewed? Would this also monitor redirects at RfD?
 * Also, is there any idea of a time consideration? I'm trying to think of a case where I would be more or less interested if it is a page I have recently reviewed versus one that is older. Now I'm really getting into the weeds&mdash;I doubt this has any factor on the bot's function, just food for thought. Overall, I like the idea. Well done @Sohom. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea. I'd like to be aware of AfD nominations for the articles I've reviewed without having to watchlist every article. One technical question: Does the bot account for page moves? That is, will it still generate a notification if an article is moved to a different title after being marked as reviewed? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Empty-warn-NPF
Template:Empty-warn-NPF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nickps (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Does the community still want moved pages to be unreviewed== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Does the community still want moved pages to be unreviewed. <b style="color:#795cb2;">Sohom</b> ( talk ) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)