Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 22

Help with determining notability of musician
While reviewing the new pages Hatchie (artist) and Sugar & Spice (EP), I had trouble determining if they fit the criteria for speedy deletion and/or if they did or did not fulfill the notability criteria regarding musicians and bands. The musician, Hatchie, was mentioned in the bare minimum of two published works, which means this should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. However, the article itself does not establish notability, and only kind of fulfills 1 of 12 criteria for notability (it has a minimum of two sources to credible published works, which is technically "multiple" sources).

I looked the artist up and I believe that she is not (yet) notable enough to warrant an article. I am however, unsure if the article should be deleted or if it is technically passable. If another more experienced reviewer could check the pages too it would be greatly appreciated. Centre Left Right ✉ 04:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying non-english
Is it appropriate to move articles that were created in other languages to draft? They clearly aren't ready to be an article, in that they are in the english wikipedia and aren't english. I don't have a specific article in mind, I'm just wondering about the policy of this. Natureium (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there are instructions here WP:A2 that may help. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) If you can't read the language, do a quick Google translation to find out what it's about.
 * 2) Tag for CSD if appropriate.
 * 3) Otherwise:
 * Tag with - including the language. This should automatically both list it at WP:Pages needing translation into English and notify the creator.
 * Then move it to draft using the draftify tool. Modify the canned draftify text as appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I've done in the past, google to try to figure out notability, and add a translation tag. I just didn't know if moving to draft was appropriate. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The steps on how to deal with non-english articles are outlined in the NPP flowchart. It is the first action on the flowchart. If it is not english; check if it exists on another wiki-->if so CSD A2, if not tag and then proceed with google translate with the rest of the review. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I read it, but it doesn't say anything about moving the article to draft. That's why I asked. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

, I'm paging you here because of this with the edit summary "non english drafts should just be declined". Is this policy? Because if so, we have two conflicting instructions and should figure it out here. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's policy at WP:PNT that we don't deal with drafts, in terms of non-english drafts it just seems common sense to decline a non english draft submitted for approval, since it clearly isn't ready to be an article. In terms of moving new non-english articles to draft, it can be done but does not have to be done, it would generally depend on if there is a likelihood of it being translated by the creator (i.e. not an article created as someones first edit and nothing since) or it is about a subject that warrants an article. We're pretty good at dealing with them at WP:PNT so by all means just list them there and we'll deal with them (for the record does not automatically add pages to WP:PNT unless you're using TW)-- Jac 16888  Talk 18:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Draftification
Can we add to the tutorial page (or anywhere official, such as WP:DRAFTIFY) a brief list of examples where draftifying articles is standard? Such as article with acceptable topics that are in a foreign language, consisting just of an infobox, etc.? I've been seeing questions on when draftifying is appropriate here (by me and others) and elsewhere such as at WP:AN today. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTIFY has all the criteria on what can be draftify or what can't. And only NPP and Admins can move draft under such conditions, no one else should be doing it. now at AFC we have "Moving Drafts to Mainspace to Consider Deletion ?"--Quek157 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (Thank you Captain Obvious - the suggestion here is to add explicit examples of what constitutes "(1) the topic has some potential merit, and (2) the article does not meet the required standard" entails.) I think that might be useful. The current list of criteria is rather generic and often requires some puzzling out to apply. Some use cases might be valuable. E.g., I've been draftifying the odd BLP article by new editors that is well-written, not detectably a copyvio, but without sources - indicating that the editor just didn't bother, or know to, name the refs. Draftifying and clearly asking them to ref it up has several times done the trick. This kind of example? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That kind of example. Thank for for actually contributing to this conversation. Natureium (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Along these lines I think it worth giving the example of draftifying when created as part of an editathon or WikiEd.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate on how draftifying an article from an editathon is different from draftifying any other article? Natureium (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Was referring to the suggestion issued in the last newsletter (among other places). If an editor is going to have experienced support I do think that makes draftifying a more viable option than in some other circumstances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to recommend the WikieEd example as well. These generally both have additional students assigned to comment on/critize an article, and a course supervisor who keeps overall tabs, so there is an expectation that stuff will get cleaned up if draftified, and the chance of abandonment in draftspace is low. I'd expect it also helps to keep up course morale if such articles, which generally have a good amount of actual literature research behind them, aren't publicly eviscerated at first go but get a chance for a do-over :). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion have been in so many places that I don't even know what, like the MFD discussion is in 20 places. WP:CIVIL please. At AN there is one, at IAWI talk there is one, at ZO there is one, at AN/I there is another, and can we consolidated a question at one place than everywhere. There is one part at NPP tutorial what to do with drafts already, for foreign language especially I am dealing with another ZO who drafted my curated one, can't we do a translation requested, can't we just follow NPP workflow strictly. Drafting should only be those lack of citations but notable or whatsoever, but pushing that back to AFC will just add to the backlog which is already that clogged and at mainspace, why don't apply mainspace rules. I really have no idea Whatsoever this question is asking. The guidelines are clear IMO. BLP I rather BLPROD which then someone will monitor and pick it up and sourced, at drafts that user will not have any head or tail what to do and add to the declines we do at AFC. Given not all AFC reviewers are Page Movers, sometime the redirect we still have to ask for admin help at RM. And we can't use mainspace tools for it. Seriously this is picking up my nerves given my context today. Please see my user contributions how a busy day I have? --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And to add, both are not involved in AFC, don't you see how many things we had to deal with AFC currently. The entire backlog may not be too much due to legacypac, Primefac, Ethopei and some of the active reviewers doing the job. Try not to move to AFC. I personally drafted up to 5 WP:TOOSOON articles. I only do it this much. If it is well done without citations, why don't we do it for them, which is why I seldom mark citation needed, refimprove, I find the ref for them. I am doing AFC and NPP job together. If we can't reject this here and that substandard articles without citations go into draft, we can't do anything. Do take note how much queries at teahouse, help desk we have and it is always taken that AC users can move their creations to mainspace if needed (which is what we always subtly tell them) after many rejects, that includes BLP as well as others. For infobox, why not move to a relevant article, histmerge or normal, then do a redirect which I also did. --Quek157 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And please don't say I BITE newcomers, I had how many newcommers thanking me for the work I did for them at AFC (via talkpage / thanks) and some at NPP when I tried to improve their articles. I personally improved a few, ask for 3O and etc that I would otherwise just reject.--Quek157 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

a week long push for June?
Maybe we should hold a push in first or second week of June, emphasising on "just 5 to 10 reviews per day to destroy the entire backlog."? That way, almost every reviewer who has seen/read about that push might participate, as the numbers arent big. I mean, they would be like "5 reviews per day? I can easily do that". Considering only 100 reviewers would review 7 pages per day, that would be 700 per day, and 7000 in the week. — usernamekiran (talk)  09:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * now I can't even use the toolbar since yesterday so can't join Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it would be in first or second week of June, if others agree. You might be able to use it by then :) — usernamekiran (talk)  09:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope so --Quek157 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to run some queries and reactivate the Special Edition Barnstar awards if you guys are keen (I'll take on giving them out, no worries). If others agree we can decide on some dates and I'll put it in the next newsletter. Just saying now that you'll be lucky to get a couple hundred reviewers to participate, the first week of the January backlog drive (the week with the highest number of reviewers) only saw 190 reviewers review a single article, and only 40 did an average of 5 or more per day (as usual it was a power law curve: stats HERE). If we set it for 10 days and ask each reviewer to review at least 50 articles (5 per day). I'll award the special edition barnstars to all who reach that threshold.
 * Another thing we could do is run an inviting drive at the same time. I could write a checklist that everyone is expected to perform (list of required background checks before invite), and everyone participating can pick slots in the List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits (I can put a table together so that you can put your name down to invite 1000-1100 for example, so that we don't double up on each other and we keep it organised). Points given for number of users who apply (that you invited) and are subsequently approved for the user-right. Good idea? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose the barnstar / awards idea but by edits it may be hard, why not do it by articles created (and survived), I can do 100,000 minor edits of grammar but I don't qualify as NPP right, I think the admins will have a hard time on this, by articles created should be better. anyway there are 2 pending requests at WP:PERM now. Why not someone just go through the entire list of rejected requests, compile the reasons and then it will be clearer who can and who cannot qualify and then that will be a better sort. quite a workload to do though. --Quek157 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the Page Curation tools are not working for you. You have the appropriate user rights. I'd ask over at WP:VPT, and if all else fails you can use Twinkle. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) done as above, thanks so much --Quek157 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And more protection of NPP is required, (as well as AFC), we get scolded on talkpages for review by newcommers, we get scolded for bad reviews (at times), and then we missed some reviews and wanted to rectify and also get flak (for me personally I accepted one Samsung Galaxy A6 / A6+ from some user without knowing Samsung Galaxy A6 is also there, the 2 pages had different ideas, I tried to copy paste merge (with attribution at talk page / summary), then lead to the initial author wanting a histmerge (without the basic knowledge to tell me over at my talkpage, making me look bad). I wanted to clarify this at ANI if you have time this is the thread then scolded by an admin for being frivolous in the request for clarification which later apologised. I don't have hard feelings but if these are the things we get by reviewing, (more for admins obviously), then who will still review? --Quek157 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)
 * I fear you've got the wrong end of the stick there, . NPP doesn't come with any special authority or immunity from criticism; you are doing assessments that any editor of a certain level of competence should be able to perform - the only extra is the ability to put a check mark on the article to show that somebody of that description has done so. If you are likely to mess up in the tricky areas (merges and the like), then just treat them as any endeavour on WP - acquire competence by trial or lurking, or sidestep them for the time being. If you feel you are getting a lot of kickback, it's not a case of needing protection, it's a case of having to improve your capabilities ;) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this could be an opportunity to review the guidelines that new articles are expected to fulfill. It's unfortunate when you come across an article that was marked as ok that clearly shouldn't have been. Natureium (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I missed it. The nuance here is that that original article is in wrong title and the new one is in. either way we have to merge and I hope to avoid parallel history by choosing cut and paste with attribution. Learned a lesson and do not anyhow accept articles from this editor, I even tagged one of their as G3 and it was speedy deleted.Quek157 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not but I do see the talkpage of AFC reviewers and some of the comments are way off. I am discussing the dissuading factors for people to join. I am not asking for immunity, if I'm wrong tell me civilly I will respond and change. I am sure my capabilities need to increase but what is the motivation to do so some may ask? Isn't civility one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in 2004. The climate isn't like what we have now so something needs to change. Quek157 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A "completely murder the backlog" push sounds good to me - that's a goal that people can get excited about, and it might well be quite effective. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Would want to be sensitive but bold with our language so I don't know if murder/kill is right frame but like this concept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Bloody massacre of the backlog"? Natureium (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT the backlog??? --Quek157 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets go for 10th-20th June. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like TNT (or WP:TNT) the Backlog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll be there. and this next part is a sort of comment to the above backlog section: I only have time to do what I have time to do, regardless of whether the index point is tomorrow or last year. As for "use it or lose" the right is only a unbundled right because giving it to everyone and anyone woudl destroy the system, we need to know who is reviewing pages. However, I am not a fan of unilaterally yanking the right on shorter notice, then if someone wants to contribute, they have sit through PERM again. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a purpose in removing the perm from users active on wikipedia but not npp, but if someone isn't active on wikipedia and comes back after a while, it seems reasonable to expect that they wouldn't be up on all the relevant wikipedia policies involved in reviewing pages. Natureium (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is precisely how we handle requests from such editors at PERM who are returning from a long hiatus. "Sitting through PERM' is not accurate and such expressions are not helpful; it takes 30 seconds to apply for the right and most requests are processed within 48 hours. Anyone who is impatient is quite obviously a hat collector or has another agenda (yes, it's happened before).
 * "Use it or lose" is what is done at AfC and I see no reason why we can't allign (in principle) with them. A time limit feature has now also been introduced for all minor rights.
 * The NPR right is not an 'unbundled' right. It is a new, restrictive right created in November 2016 following consensus for a proposal I made. Unfortunately the system is still flawed because a few members of the community in their wisdom insisted that inexperienced users and newbies still be allowed to tag pages for deletion although they can no longer tag them as patrolled. This leaves the major concern - for which the RfC was originally intended - unaddressed: New creators being bitten by harsh and often incorrect deletion and maintenance tags applied by people who are not aware of the instructions at WP:NPP and who are not yet likely to have achieved the high degree of competency for the complexities of the tasks tutored there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about removing the perm from inactive editors, not granting it to recently returned editors, although it's the same principle. Natureium (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the users are trusted and otherwise active in such a way that being kept up on relevant policies etc. can be reasonably expected, then removing the flag isn't constructive, even if they are not using the tools. In other cases, where the user is wholly inactive from the wiki, I don't have a problem with removing the flag from inactive users (inactive from the wiki entirely). Leave a friendly notice on their talk page indicating how much activity might be reasonably expected if they would like to apply again for the user right (e.g. several hundred edits over a few months would be expected). I just do not want to see us removing the flag from otherwise active users who simply have not used the tools recently, if these users are in good standing with the community, as this may discourage others from applying fro the flag if they feel they will be under pressure to always use it. We are WP:VOLUNTEERS, and user-rights should represent community trust. IF the user becomes completely inactive for a long stretch of time, it is reasonable to assume a reduction of trust, and therefore user-rights afforded, until such time that they are clearly active and up-to-speed again. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am wholly convinced, based on the way other user rights are accorded (and a few other things that go back years), that inactive patrollers should be struck (after a friendly note). Constantly publishing that we have 630 patrollers gives a totally wrong impression in more ways than one - one of which is obviously: "Aw, we have 630, it won't matter if 'I' don't do anything". The world is full of people in volunteer situations who are prepared to leave the brunt of the work to others. There is also the 50 or so users who have removed themselves from the newsletter list - they aren't exactly demonstrating any interest other than 'having' the right. As a compromise, now that we have the time-limited feature for all minor rights, we could consider according rights in the first instance for the first 6 months. Time peop0kle  realised that  NPR  is serious stuff and not just a MMORPG for 'murdering' backlogs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also against (newer people as described by Kudpung) tagging of pages, I had seen in my short tenure pages which should be kept being prod, should be csd tagged with refimprove, should be afd given tags. Will we need a Rfnpp for lifetime rights. Since npp is also one of the extended perms, no objection for it to be removed per inactivity per sysops. Quek157 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing yourself from the newsletter looks like you aren't interested in the project, and we might as well ask if they want to contribute or remove the perm from them. WRT removing the perm from people active on wp but not NPP, disinterest isn't permanent. Sometimes I get tired of a task and stop for a few months, then come back later. Natureium (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

bug in the toolbar?
I unreviewed an article, and left a note to editor who reviewed it; using the curation toolbar. Then I took the article to AfD, and page creator received this on his talkpage. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

List of school mass shootings in the United States
Please could someone check List of school mass shootings in the United States. Earwig gives it as a massive copyvio of this site. I cannot access the source because it is not available in the EU, so I am unable to assess whether this is an unambiguous copyvio. The article creator has no history of copyvios on his talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This was split from List of school shootings in the United States‎ and is bordering on a POV fork. It was created because some people want to include every time a gun was discharged on a school campus whether or not the event was notable, and some want an article with information on mass shootings without having to sort through irrelevant info. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That explains the aspects that I found puzzling and that led me to believe that it wasn't a simple copyvio. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio tool broken
The copyvio tool appears to be broken. Is there a backup plan for when this happens, or is NPP at a halt? Natureium (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What, you mean Earwig's tool? Works fine for me... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mysterious. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It crashes every once in a while. Just wait a few minutes and it'll reboot. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes & when it's down you can always paste a few select phrases into Google and see what you find. Obviously not as good but should catch the worst COPVIOs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

G6 CSD
I'm having a discussion here about a speedy that was declined at Skandha (disambiguation), which is linking to Skandha (Jainism) and Skandha.

The new page curation tool says:
 * Unnecessary disambiguation page — This only applies for orphaned disambiguation pages which either: (1) disambiguate two or fewer existing Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or (2) disambiguates no (zero) existing Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. (G6)

Whereas WP:CSD says:
 * Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

I didn't know there was a difference and have been going by the NPP curation tool explanation and have never had a speedy declined before. I assumed that a disambig page was unnecessary because a hat note could just be added to the article without a parenthetical descriptor in the title. Please advise. Natureium (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's crazy, but a completely unnecessary dab page doesn't qualify for CSD G6; the curation tool has got it wrong if it's saying what you quote above. I've PRODded the page in question (which was actually incomplete, as there's a 3rd meaning included in the hatnote at Skandha!). Pam  D  16:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But does "disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page" mean it is disambiguating one page from another, or it is just a like to one page, like a malformed redirect? Natureium (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It means there's only one definition that actually has an article. Essentially, it should be a redirect (if the title is just the term by itself) (or maybe the target page should be moved thereto), or shouldn't exist at all (if it's a title with "(disambiguation)").  I'm confused by your "disambiguating one page from another" interpretation - how could only one of the pages be the page being disambiguated? — Smjg (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The hatnote says to me that "Skanda" and "Skandha" are two different things, and as such it ought to be a distinguish. Furthermore, Skanda is another disambiguation page. — Smjg (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry and possible undisclosed paid editing by a new page reviewer
See Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11 and WP:COIN. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad he wasn't even trying to be slick. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  19:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious of big text dump
Maybe I'm just getting paranoid - but a monolithic, highly structured article dump like Access to information rings some alarm bells. I can't find any obvious copyvios with search engine pasting and Earwig; still, I somehow doubt that the editor just prepared this entire oeuvre in her mind's eye and then posted it picture-perfect. Particularly since a) there's no sandboxing of this thing in her history whatsoever, and b) looking at her talk page, she's been in some hot water before for copyright violations via text dump. - Left it unreviewed for the time being; if someone wants to have a look, that'd be welcome. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's something going on there. For one, some of the references say they were accessed at different points in 2017. Natureium (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like some of it is copied word-for-word from here, which I think might be open source. . Natureium (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah - didn't do a book search... would fit, since the lady seems to have a strong UNESCO bias. Needs some copy-editing for missing nouns, half-sentences etc., I notice - also consistent with copying and re-arranging large passages. Well, I suppose that would be all right then? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It needs attribution (if it is from that source it's CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO), or it's a copyvio. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's properly attributed at the bottom Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So it does. Why didn't I see that... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of the references that have been added with spaces inserted in the links making it difficult to use earwig. I am cleaning them up but this looks very suspicious. Why would someone who has the source addresses deliberately doctor them and add them as general references. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How did this IP creation get through to NPP feed?
Hi I came across this Tattooed On My Brain that was created by this IP Special:Contributions/188.174.175.144 but they only have 2 live edits and no notifications on their talk page (so no deleted pages I suppose). They can't be autoconfirmed can they? I saw that User:Firefly moved the talk page to mainspace, does that mean a non autoconfirmed user can create a talk page in mainspace and if it gets moved then this bypasses what was decided in ACTRIAL? Dom from Paris (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * looking into it… cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  11:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Talk:Here comes the BM-21 Grad which I just created from a random IP. All someone has to do it create a good looking enough article, and wait for it to be moved to mainspace. Pretty clever, and to a degree, pretty safe as well. Spamdalism still can't get into the article as the mover has the onus to make sure the page is appropriate for the mainspace instead of Draftspace or the toilet. Gablotter just declined your A9 (i would have too, it looked pretty notable, and GNG check shows 2/3). Thanks cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  11:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * non-autoconfirmed users can create talk pages. Firefly as an autoconfirmed user can obviously move pages, and they decided to move it to main space. No bypassing, as all ACTRIAL says is that non-autoconfirmed users can't directly create pages in main space. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I intended to do (and has now been done) is to redirect it to somewhere more appropriate. It meets the low bar of A9, but not much more than that. Apologies, I must've gotten distracted. ƒirefly  ( t · c · who? ) 11:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

List of professed religious
Can somebody please take a look at List of professed religious? Thanks. — usernamekiran (talk)  05:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tony's PROD seems about right. That would be an unmanageable pile o' hay. If de-prodded, should go straight to AfD. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Theosophy and science
I started wading through this article but it is way too heavy. I am sure this is in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK this can only interest a very very small audience. Can ayone suggest the best way of treating this because the article creator has created other highly detailed and heavy articles on the same subject Thought-Forms (book) Christianity and Theosophy. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have added Cleanup. It relies heavily of Hammer, who looks like a decent enough source, and should be probably be kept in some form.
 * Yup - I'd say it looks a good deal too expansive, heavy on the quotes, and relying on pulling together arguments rather than summarizing them - but lots of good material. If slimmed down and de-essayed, this might be a good article. Going to be one big job though :| -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic Covenant
I was just about to move this to draftspace as something that seemed dubiously notable and insufficiently in comportment with sourcing and content standards, put potentially resuable. Then I noted that the article author appears to be the same person as the author of the only (and almost certainly non-reliable) source, which increased my concerns about promotion, however non-self-serving the organization may be, by its nature. This is a close call and I have not been exercising the reviewer permission for long, so I thought I would get some outside input. All factors considered, I think CSD or at least AfD may be appropriate here, but there may be an argument for moving to draft space and giving the author a chance to provide additional sourcing--it's just that I have serious doubts that there is a realistic chance said source would be forthcoming. Thoughts on the best approach in such a borderline case? Snow let's rap 07:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, looks like I have my answer in the form of another reviewers action on the matter. ;) S<b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 10:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Radio Stations
The call signs for radio stations periodically change. There seem to be a couple of editors who are taking formerly used call signs that were turned into redirects and (re)creating article pages. The first time I had restored the redirect, this process was then explained to me, and I've seen marked as reviewed a couple others. But since there seem to be even more (one that is in the feed as I write this is KYPY) thought I would see what others think as it seems like it might be an undesirable contentfork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

tagging unsubmitted drafts
Is thee any reason for tagging unsubmitted drafts using NPP for routine problems, as for example at Draft:TBM_QLN_Express? I can see checking them as submitted for copyvio, but otherwise it's only going to complicate the work of AfC. (Accepted drafts are another matter--they need to be checked like any other article, rather than just assuming the AfC reviewers got it right.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. How do these even come up for review? They aren't in the queue, are they? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless I really am misunderstanding the history it looks like that particular article was tagged with page curation tags before moving to draft. What am I missing about that sequence of events? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like it. I haven't bothered to de-tag articles before draftifying, and I don't think there's any call for it either; those may be useful reminders :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a problem, I'll start removing tags before moving to draft, but I didn't know it would complicate things. It seems like it should just give the article creator some ideas of what they need to do. Natureium (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Not showing up in the log
Hullo. I was granted New Page Reviewer rights a while back and I did a few but I never showed up in the statistics. I held off for a while trying to figure if I was doing something wrong. I am trying again, any page I review drops off the queue but if you look at the |New Page Patrol log for my username, it doesn't show any since 2014. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong. Thanks, in advance. Ifnord (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not lost. Are you using the curation tool? Natureium (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not lost, but they're not easy to find. ;) And, yes, I am using the tool. Ifnord (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You can also try this which can be set to display weekly and monthly by toggling the last bit in the URL. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  12:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of essays
I'm having a problem with a bunch of articles that were all created by the same author in the last two months. Helpfully they have also created a dedicated list article that enumerates the lot:


 * Content analysis of mechanic/syntactic patterns
 * Curriculum mapping in composition studies
 * Extra-disciplinary literature review
 * Linguistic discourse analysis
 * Qualitative research on student experiences with writing
 * Qualitative assessment of composition pedagogy
 * Rhetorical histories
 * Rhetorical recasting

(Based on that, we also can look forward to

)
 * Disciplinary critique
 * Identity performance analysis
 * Mixed methods research on student experiences with writing

All of these articles lean very heavily on the essay side and have scarce sourcing. Each individual one I would have treated as previous reviewers apparently have - tag as in need of better sourcing and de-essaying, and trust in the Wiki process to clean it up. What gives me pause is the bulk addition of a whole group of these, all with the same problems. This looks like a "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" thing - lots of articles, with individual problems that are possibly fixable; seen as a group, they add up to a larger problem that is unlikely to be fixed.

I haven't encountered this before, so I'd like some input. Not sure what options exist here, and if any action is even considered necessary. I just feel that letting all of these slide in individually is like trickle-feeding castor oil - no single drop is going to mess you up, but you'll be regretting the aggregate. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest prod but not sure of the basis aside from WP:NOTESSAY. Or draftify the lot? Then they'll have to be submitted through articles for creation, or will be deleted if not improved after 6 months or so. Polyamorph (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They may be the result of some educational project, with seven being created in quick succession on April 24th, for example, perhaps by different students. Draftifying the lot seems to be a good idea to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Draftified the lot. Polyamorph (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, cheers - hope we are not stretching the envelope of the NPP draftify process too far here, but let's be optimistic :) Dropped them an explanatory note on their talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if draftication was the right approach here. It seems like deletion without going through the deletion process rather than asking them to get them to a minimum standard before publishing. Natureium (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not deletion, the drafts still exist. The editor has the opportunity to submit through articles for creation. Or my actions can always be easily undone if anyone objects. Polyamorph (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is not deletion, but it's similar in the sense that when an article is deleted, it's not actually gone, it's just gone from view. Removing an article from mainspace also mostly removes it from view. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftifying is different from deletion in that it can be easily reverted (the page log offers a convenient revert link) or the article can simply be moved back into mainspace by autoconfirmed users. Sometimes more views are desirable, and sometimes it is preferable that the creator work on it themselves first. AfC is optional, except for editors with a conflict of interest and IPs. I don't think that new editors always understand that, so it's important to establish a line of communication with them (i.e. make sure they know how to use talk pages). Vexations (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Backlog rapidly shrinking
I'd like to thank everyone for their recent contributions. The backlog is just about to dip below 1500, with the number of unreviewed redirects also rapidly shrinking (under 2400). Looks like we could have the entire backlog gone by the end of the month. I've been focusing a bit more of my time towards vetting and inviting people to become new reviewers, so that the project will be stable in the long term, but thanks again for all of you that have resolutely been chipping away at the coal face. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have done very  well in  leading  this incentive and I  believe we owe you  some thanks. With  the backlog down to 1,458 today, a final  spurt  should get  it  down to  zero -  let's see if it  can be done and show the AfC folks what  the NPRers are capable of ;) It  doesn't  mean we need to  relax but there should be no  reason  then why a day's arrivals can't  be triaged in  a day.  Excellent  work  everyone! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , The recent reduction has been down to a few editors that have been doing some serious heavy lifting lately. seems to have decided to review the rest of the backlog by himself (2400 and counting since I sent the message on Saturday).  is giving him a run for his money though (1108), as well as another dozen or so on 100+. Stats on who has been working the backlog recently can be found on quarry (updated manually once or twice a day): . Unfortunately it seems that the majority of the backlog reduction of late is again down to a few dozen people. This continues the trend that NPP is a project dependent on a few dedicated individuals, rather than spreading the load out among hundreds (as we all wish would happen). However, as the number of reviewers increases, it raises the odds that a few of those extra dedicated reviewers are active at any given point. The stability of NPP is improving as the numbers of reviewers raise, so I think that continuing to invite users is the best use of my time, and the list that you helped me sort out the criteria for is going very well so far. The automated checks helped to reduce the list to a manageable level where 2/3 or more editors pass the subsequent manual checks, which both cuts down on the workload of inviting, as well as allows much greater scrutiny; since the candidates are so good to begin with, it is easier to be choosy.
 * Still, regardless of how much the invites or events help with getting people motivated to reduce the backlog, the real kudos go to the people that are out there reviewing the articles. Thanks everyone. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Backlog is looking great! To be honest most of my last reviews have just been checking off redirects which are miles easier than reviewing full pages - I've been out of town the last 3 days so I was running through pages where I could find service here and there - so more credit goes to Onel5969 for his tremendous work. I'll go back to reviewing real articles today. Hope to do a couple hundred more to get that number below 1000 for the first time! Keep up the good work everyone!! <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 13:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 999! —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * under 4 digits - nice!. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * we are now at 804. Once we get it it less than 450, i dont think the number will cross 2500 again. At least not in near future. I really want to contribute, but unfortunately due to some reasons i dont have access to computer for almost 10 days, and patrolling on mobile is a feat. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not count on it. There are some 350-400 new articles submitted each day, not including redirects, and very often it is one or two people that do most of the reviewing each day to stop the backlog raising, even when it stays relatively steady. If we are not vigilant it could be very easy for the backlog to start raising again. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but we could always do another backlog drive! (Aren't those fun?) Haha <b style="color:#000080">S EMMENDINGER </b> (<b style="color:#F80"> talk </b>) 13:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oldest Articles Sort Checklist
Inspired by in the Hoax section above, I have put down in writing the checklist I use for dealing with pages in the queue that frequently occur when using the sort by oldest. This includes some procedures I've made up wholesale for things like dealing with new dabs or articles already tagged for deletion for which I could find no existing policy or procedures. I welcome any thoughts/comments/additions/changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (The checklist from above: User:Natureium/checklist) Natureium (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also a good one, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's very useful, cheers. The question "Why did this pop up in the list now?" is very diagnostic for these articles, and misinterpreting the cause can really lead you up the garden path... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

inviting editors
We have already experienced the effect of new reviewers: the backlog dropped massively when ICPH invited editors to become reviewers. As I stated a few times previously, after a period most of the editors lose interest from reviewing articles, even if they remain active on enwiki. Currently we are on such a turn, where the "opportunity" of reviewing article might become occasional, like PCR. a few weeks ago, the average number of new articles being created was around 600-700 per day (before AC-REQ), I dont know about now. Also, i dont know about PCR rate either. The point is, editors becoming reviewers under current circumstances will lose the interest a lot later than previous ones, maybe even never. Till now, most of the active reviewers were under pressure/burden and/or obligation (whether conscious and/or subconscious/subliminal). But if the backlog stays below 500, reviewing would become fun (ie not under pressure). But to keep the backlog under 500, we will need more number of active reviewers for two or three weeks. If we recruit a lot of (number of) competent reviewers, then I think we will manage to keep the backlog under 500 or maybe even less, like PCR. So the bottomline is: I think along with the reviewing, we should always keep a lookout for worthy editors, and invite them. These are just my thoughts though. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a relatively new reviewer (less than 90 days all post ACPERM) who has now done close to 1000 reviews, I actually worry that if there aren't articles for a new reviewer to do that they will lose interest and never actually become part of the review team even if they hold the permission. I think ICPH has been smart to recruit now as we get to a goal but wonder how things will play out in a no backlog future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No backlog, that's a good problem to have! Going by the continuous up-and-down of the AfC backlog over the years, we'll have to stay on top of things or it can easily get out of control again. But hopefully surplus labour will help us spend more time on articles and help out with other backlogs (e.g. AfC, maintenance tags... the list is literally endless). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree no backlog is a good thing and meant to (and then forgot) to include that in my original message. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a problem. If the backlog is short, maybe NPPers will have the time to spend a few minutes to cleanup new articles rather than just tagging them. Natureium (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is to  be hoped for -  or at  least  all  the points listed at  WP:NPP scrupulously addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be great news if NPPers would actually have more time to edit articles rather than tag them. This would encourage new editors to improve and continue their efforts. I remember creating my first pages and some of them were tagged for speedy deletion or received a bunch of ugly tags, when a few minutes of work on their side would've been enough to solve most of the issues. It was very discouraging to say the least. I think the fact that the backlog will finally be reduced to a minimum and hopefully provide more time for thorough reviews and edits, will create a more positive environment and encourage new editors to keep contributing. ⚜ L i t h O l d o r ⚜  (T) 14:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical developments - report  in  The Signpost
In this month's issue of The Signpost is a report  on  ongoing  technical  developments to the New Pages Feed. The magazine now goes out regularly, usually  to  be published on  the last  Friday  of the month with  copy  deadline a week  before. It often includes reports on  NPR  and related issues which  can sometimes avoid the need of duplication and/or too  frequent  issues of the NPP  newsletter. As The Signpost has a wide readership and  reports are usually  in-depth, the editorial  team  welcomes  suggestions  and submissions from  New Page Reviewers on  the topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very useful synthesis (and nice structural metaphor :). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Milestone
At 16:40 (04:40PM UTC) 28 June, the backlog dropped to 700 during the concentrated backlog drive. Down from around  17,000 a year  ago.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We have 2 days left! cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  17:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Under 500 now (despite the new "autopatrol bug" below). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Great work everyone/backlog drive complete
We started with almost 3000 articles in the backlog, and now there are less than 500.

With only 500 unreviewd articles left, I think we can stop calling it a backlog, and start calling it 'the queue' or something else. If it wasn't for the bug that resulted in autopatrolled articles ending up in the NPP feed, I think we would have reveiwed all of the articles, but nevertheless it is hard to call this anything but an unmitigated success. Thanks to everyone that contributed to reviewing during the backlog drive since I sent out the announcement on the 16th (together we reviewed 17193 pages!), and special thanks especially to, who reviewed 4649 pages by himself during the drive. I'll be sending out Barnstars to the 32 editors that reviewed >100 articles during the drive.

Keep up the good work! —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog elimination push?
I know we had tentatively scheduled a backlog push for 10th to the 20th June. Sorry for not making that happen, I had my birthday last weekend, and during the week have been off on remote site work for my IRL job.

We have had a bit of a backlog reduction since the drive was proposed, so I'm not certain that it is currently necessary. However, if people are still keen to have a push to eliminate the backlog, I propose that we push it back to 20th-30th June, and I will put together a newsletter this weekend with regards to this if people are keen. I'm thinking that anyone who reviews at least 50 articles over the 10 days gets a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (the silver and gold ones that are only given out in backlog drives). Additionally, there will specialised tiers for those who reach 100/200/500/1000 reviews. Note that there are currently 3100 unreviewed articles and 7500 total unreviewed pages, including redirects. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I don't believe there are substantial downsides (previously voiced concerns about frivolity unfitting the sober task notwithstanding :), we do want a better buffer, and I would hope that the outlay of time and effort on your part would be much less this time than last, if you have the infrastructure already prepared? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also happy BD, mate :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we send a special NPP newsletter or bulletin reminding people of this? A proposed goal was to see if we could eliminate the backlog which seems feasible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll send out a brief newsletter tomorrow. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good time for a push. It's just dropped to 2999, which is certainly the lowest since I started work on the project, wonderful to see it dip beneath 3000. How amazing would it be to see 1000? Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Now I get the memo :) I have been busy as a bee and knocked out 80. I take it the 20th was mention because you won't be able to make the 17th? Else I thought we started these on a weekend. Thanks, cinco deL3X1  ◊distænt write◊  20:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at unreviewed, no categories. Only 34 to go. Can you see that light at the end of the tunnel?Vexations (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that light is the flash from me emptying a few BM-21 Grad into the spamuser space. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that despite saying that we would start on the 20th, I might as well just count the edits from when I sent out the message (late on the 16th), as there was a flurry of reviewing immediately afterwards. I've set up a query at where you can check your review count as we progress, though I'll only be running it every 12 hours or so (if you want you can just fork it and run it yourself if you want to see in real time). Cheers and happy reviewing everyone. Note sure if I will be able to partake myself, as I am supremely busy at the moment with IRL work. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The back of the queue is now just two months old. It'd be great to get it down to a month (or less!) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Drive is over, we knocked out at least 8,000 pages. Good job everyone.cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

creation log now live
It can be found at Special:Log/create. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  12:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. I gather we didn't have that previously, then? An odd omission. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yup, it was strange overlook indeed. When i first put forward the idea, i was bounced from one place to another NPP's suggested improvements, village pump and so on. The log went live on 04:40, June 28, 2018. It is the oldest entry in the log. But now whatever is created, gets logged there. Guys at SPI, and COIN are going to be happy. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  19:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is convenient, but I don't see why it's that big of a deal of SPI and COIN. The list was always available on xtools, it's just an extra step getting there. Natureium (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * well, yes and no. If a deleted page is recreated, then for non admins, knowing the first creator is difficult. For xtools to work, you need to know the username. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  20:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not showing pre-6/28 creations, it that permanent? Also, will deleted pages show up in it? cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * AFAIR, per the phab ticket, likely no. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * when it was created it was supposed to not to show creations preceding deployment of the log. But that might change in the future. And yes, it will show the deleted pages, that is the primary purpose of the log. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  10:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)