Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

TutorialDiscussionNew page feed

• Sorted
• Easy
• Reports

Reviewers

• Resources
• School
• Top

Curation tool
SuggestionsCoordination

• Talk
• Awards
• Newsletter

• May backlog drive

NPP backlog

Articles

15228 ↑147

Oldest article

8 years old

Redirects

23663

Oldest redirect

4 months old

Article reviews

1473

Redirect reviews

4815

• There is a very large articles backlog
• The articles backlog is growing very rapidly (↑785 since last week)
• There is a very large redirects backlog

Tip: When you see a page that appears to be obviously a commissioned work, take a moment to check the history. If it's a recreation of a page that has previously been deleted three or more times, please add the {{salt}} tag below the CSD tag to request that the responding administrator SALT the article. In addition, consider adding a note to the talk page requesting a block of the account per WP:SPAM. For more information please see this section and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to post a question here.

NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)

Centralizing information about sources

When I was first starting out at NPP a few months ago, someone posted an overview of Nigerian sources (both reliable and unreliable) on this page, which was extremely useful, and without which I don't think I could have effectively reviewed most Nigerian articles. I was wondering if we could consider having a page storing a similar overview of sources for other regions and topics.

While it is possible to search WP:RSN and WP:RSP for individual sources, those pages are best used to review the reliability of specific sources, not for finding additional sources. And while several WikiProjects maintain reliable source lists, depending on the project in question these lists may be hard to find, or infrequently updated. I think that having an easy-to-find overview of reliable sources will allow new NPP patrollers to learn the ropes more quickly and make better decisions, with greater confidence, about topics that they are not previously familiar with.

Has something like this been tried in the past? What are people's thoughts? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• That would be great! Similarly, members of WikiProject Albums have compiled a list of sources on music complete with links to discussions on their suitability here which I have found highly useful. Other lists may exist, or if we put our heads together I'm sure we can generate some. Ajpolino (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• I am broadly in favor of this idea. I have made a Google Custom Search engine from RS/P that I use and find helpful. I think the place we need to be careful with something like this is we need to make sure there really is community consensus behind the sources being reliable before we start trusting them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 We can probably include that as an EL on RSPS. GMG^talk 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's a good idea but would take some sustained effort & commitment so as not to end up as another stillborn project stublet; would need to make sure that's available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to put in a significant amount of legwork to get this off the ground, although I think there are some open questions as to how the page should be organized. Given that the NPP backlog is pretty bad right now, I don't know that it's necessarily something we should prioritize at this moment, but I'll probably start a draft in progress sometime soon. That having been said, if we're planning a recruitment drive, it would be good to get this set up before a large new batch of NPP reviewers come through. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've started a draft at User:Rosguill/NPPRS, and will be contributing to it during downtime (read: while copyvio scripts run). Feel free to lend a hand! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Progress report March 24 and some thoughts

Having just finished compiling all WP:RSP sources, I have a few thoughts about what could be added or changed, and some questions about how to proceed.

• Unsurprisingly, the perennial sources list skews toward American and UK sources. While this doesn't make it useless, it does mean that we're still lacking information about reliable sources for obscure or esoteric topics (from an en-wiki perspective). Moreover, many major sources for other countries (such as most Indian newspapers of record, among many other examples) don't have any discussion on WP:RSN at all. In my estimation, this leaves us with three options: 1) bring all of these sources to RSN for discussion 2) discussing these sources as new page patrollers, with the knowledge that we are not so much establishing a consensus of the publication's overall reliability, but just if it's reliable for establishing the notability of subjects, or 3) establish a baseline rule that the top N non-tabloid papers by readership for a country should be considered newspapers of record and reliable unless evidence to the contrary is presented (with additional considerations for countries where multiple major languages are spoken). Of these options, I think (3) essentially reflects how we already operate on an informal basis and could be more easily implemented, but (1) and (2) are perhaps more desirable long-term solutions.
• In addition to concerns about geographic biases, there's also a lack of information about reliable sources for many specialized topics, such as religion, or for political subjects outside the mainstream. While academic sources are often the best way to address such topics, they may sometimes be lacking or hard to access, and at any rate this is not a terribly useful suggestion when evaluating an article's existing sources.
• I've gone ahead and added information about publications' political stances for entries where this was uncontroversial or well-sourced, as I think this is useful information when evaluating an article as it helps assess weight (or helps a reviewer search for sources that may have a different take on an event). However, I recognize that this is potentially controversial as it may not always reflect an existing consensus that has been deliberated on Wikipedia. Additionally, I frequently ran into difficulties of how to report editorial stances: for instance, virtually every major American news source is capital-L Liberal in its political outlook, but not necessarily "liberal" in the American context, leaving me (and anyone else interested in maintaining this resource) with having to choose between under-reporting certain editorial biases and including potentially confusing information.
• The RSP list (and most RSN discussions) predominantly focus on the reliability of claims made by sources, as opposed to whether receiving the attention of such sources is notable. This can cut both ways: TV Guide is listed by RSP as reliable, but my gut intuition as a page patroller is that being listed in the TV Guide does not contribute toward notability. On the other hand, while editors may be concerned about the general reliability of Russian state media, I think that it's pretty safe to say that if RIA Novostii is providing in-depth coverage for a non-controversial subject, this contributes significantly to its notability. It would be nice to be able to reorganize the page based primarily on notability, but this would likely require significant discussion in order to form consensuses about various sources.
• Once sections for various countries and regions are more complete, it would probably be good to write brief introductions/overviews for each region/country as appropriate. I believe that this would be particularly useful for regions that are primarily served by unreliable media, or by international press services located outside the country/region that may not immediately spring to mind as relevant sources to look up for editors unfamiliar with the region.

With that said, I'd like to hear people's thoughts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts in response:

• I am torn about how a source should appear on an NPP list. On the one-hand if it's endorsed by NPP that's great. On the other, we'd effectively be declaring a source RS because if we mark something as reviewed it's unlikely to get nominated for deletion. As it stands now we informally already trust NPP to make this determination but if we put it in writing it starts to run into WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues that could spread across the entire project. As such going through an RfC whether here or at RSN seems like the right way forward in this case. Alternatively if we want to establish the top N rule I think we'd need to do that through RfC.
• I'm not sure what reporting an organization's bias gets us. It's either RS or it's not for a given topic. That political bias is just one perhaps imprecise way of determining that. For instance if Shepard Smith reports on a Democrat we've got a pretty strong community consenus that this should be treat as reliable in a way that we wouldn't if it was Bill O'Reilly. So I would suggest not including that lean at all.
• I think your point that something can be RS and not helpful in establishing notability is certainly true but again is context dependent on other factors. To stay with TV Guide being listed there doesn't help establish a show/actor as notable but having a TV profile should. This circles back to WP:SIGCOV not the reliability of the source itself.

Thanks Rosguill for all the work you've put into this.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49,

• Is it acceptable to just make it extremely clear in the essay that we intend this to just be used for notability assessment purposes, and that it should under no circumstances be used to contradict other reliability assessments with wider consensus? In some ways, it feels like we're not really assessing a source's RS status, but are bound to using that term due to a poverty of other terminology to describe sources. There's also a weird friction between our de facto practices as NPPers in the absence of any essay and what we're hoping to codify here in an attempt to improve the reliability of patroller's decisions.

• regarding bias, we routinely include comments about publication's biases towards (or against) states in reliability assessments. It could be argued that this constitutes a more salient concern than other political prerogatives, but I'm concerned that defining a clear line between these biases is more easily said than done.

• at any rate, you're right about TV Guide, but I'm honestly more concerned about the opposite case. In my opinion it seems silly to list Russian state media (or other state media) as "unreliable" or "no consensus" if we're assessing notability. Even for controversial topics, the opinion of such biased outlets is (usually) notable and should confer notability, even if it doesn't deserve full weight.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill With that third bullet it seems like you're getting at the tension between SNG and WP:N. Subject notability should be a shortcut to GNG. Notability is also at some level binary. A topic is either is notable or it's not. Reliability is far more clearly a continuum. I think you're right that more often than not a Russian state controlled media outlet would be reliable in telling us that something aired nationally which would establish it as notable per WP:NTV. However, that same source could be unreliable enough that we wouldn't actually want to cite it to that in an ideal world simply because it is unreliable. The not in "more often than not" is not inconsequential - sometimes state controlled media will have an incentive to lie and lie in a big way. For instance we shouldn't believe anything that state controlled media in North Korea says. I think it will be hard for any listing of sources to account for all of that nuance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm not sure what SNGs have to do with this; it is my current opinion that if an article about a non-controversial Russian or Central Asian subject has significant coverage in RIA, it should be considered notable (while possibly also flagging it as needing additional sources). At any rate, one thing that we may want to consider is that because this is intended as a guide for page reviewing, the question isn't so much that we should or shouldn't be seeking out articles in a given source, but rather "what do we do when we find an article that is already relying on a given source". I'm also skeptical of the extent to which state media is uniquely problematic in these ways, but that's a tangent that is not terribly relevant to decisions we would make here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill I agree state media is not unique. Let me try and make clearer my point about SNG and how it relates to sourcing and NPP. What I was saying with SNG is that it offers us a shortcut to GNG. We don't necessarily need to find the multiple reliable sources that discuss something in significant detail if we can show that it meets an SNG. By meeting an SNG we can generally presume it's notable and move on. So could a less than fully reliable source be reliable enough about a SNG criteria (letting us presume notability) even if it shouldn't be used in a good (or even decent) Wikipedia article? To that I was suggesting yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of broader discussion here I'm going to try bringing this to the village pump to hash out further steps, although between the rather high backlog right now and some personal life stuff that's keeping me busy I may not be able to get around to this for a bit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Community tech working on Page curation

It looks like Community tech has started preliminary work on the page curation improvements we got voted for in the community wishlist last year. (meta:Community_Tech/Page_Curation_and_New_Pages_Feed_improvements). I'd just like to reiterate that during discussions we need to keep everything civil and not bring up any of the old wounds and bad blood between NPP and the WMF. I was previously informed that if members of NPP do so, or assume bad faith on behalf of members of the tech team, that it would likely result in delays and/or less work being done on our project. I fully believe that the Tech team is committed to working on the tools for us in good faith, so lets have this be a new chapter between NPP and the WMF.

Indeed I have been following the Phab tasks and there has already been some work completed by vollunteers (dunno if anyone noticed but 'Blocked user', 'Orphaned', 'No categories' are now being flagged as issues in the 'info' section of the Page Curation toolbar). More to be added to that task (T207847), but great work so far.

That being said, I'm excited about the work to be done and suggest that anyone interested in being part of the discussion watchlist the page above and its related talk page. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's great. But it seems the issue doesn't disappear after being patrolled (or wasn't applied correctly in the first place). For instance, in this article, the info section shows an issue claiming there's no citation at all, but the article does contain citations. And so is true even in its first revision. Any idea why?. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad it will only recognize certain citation styles and that is not one of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the code, the extension checks for </ref> tags to determine the number of references available. It didn't recognize the sfn tags used in that particular article to be references. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ammarpad, While I suppose we could bug them about fixing this bug, I don't think that this is a common enough occurrence that we really need to worry about it too much. However, I have mentioned the bug in the related T207847 phab task. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not found this false positive to be too much of a hindrance when reviewing. It has, for instance, sometimes been a great sign that a page has been copied from another wiki (and maybe a deleted article) when such text is clearly pasted in whole sale with the formatting not working. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NPPBrowser - status?

Just checking if someone knows what's up with the NPP Browser, which has been on the blink for a week or so [1]. This may have been caused by an apparent operating system change on Toolforge [2] - but if that's the only reason, one might expect a lot of other tools to have broken at the same time, which I have not heard about. Rentier, who maintains it, doesn't appear to be around much these days. Any information? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It is one of the tools that weren't migrated to Stretch by the cutoff date. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean it died, or is just dormant until reactivated? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The tools is still there, but Rentier will need to migrate it. What that entails depends on how the tool is coded and setup. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Large number of constituency stubs by PPP001

The feed has been flooded for the past few days with ~150 (guess) stubs for "state constituencies" created by PPP001, sourced to a dead link that I suspect is a list entry in a voting district register, or similar. Nearly a hundred have been draftified by Onel5969 for lack of sourcing (ex. Draft:Labuk_(state_constituency)). For the few that the user bothered to put through AfC, some with this exact sourcing have been accepted (here by Stevey7788), others declined (here by CASSIOPEIA). The latest batch (see latest creations: [3]) have been effectively draftify-proofed by leaving a draft sitting while newly re-creating the article without a move (ex. Bebar (state constituency)).

Questions:

• are these inherently notable as governmental divisions?
• If yes, should they remain in mainspace even in absence of a working reference?
• If no to either of the previous ones, what to do with the lot?

PPP001, can you comment on what the reference is supposed to be, and why you are not at least providing a working one? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I would argue that they do meet WP:GEOFEAT, as officially recognized subdivisions. However, any unreferenced material may be deleted at any time as per WP policy. Prior to this latest batch, PPP001 had created hundreds of other stubs, with at least one valid source. This is an editor who needs to be slow down. It is troubling that this editor has simply recreated the articles which were draftified without correcting issue. It's to such a great extent, that perhaps an ANI to address this behavior is needed. Not sure what to do with the incorrectly recreated stubs, however. They don't really qualify for speedy deletion, but neither should they remain in their current condition.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Onel5969 I agree with your analysis except that talking to the editor - which should probably be done on their talk page rather than here - before heading to ANI seems like the correct first step. Hopefully the 100 notifications about draftifications has also given them a clue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 - I would have hoped the notifications would have done the trick, but alas, it seems not to, based on their subsequent behavior of simply recreating the deficient articles. Also, in amongst those notifications, I also left them 2 or more messages asking them not to continue this behavior. Which they have ignored, so while I agree that the first step is to contact them on their talk page, I would posit that that requirement has now been met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Onel5969 Apologies - I missed those sections amidst the mass of other notifications. If they're continuing to create than we probably are needing ANI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49 - No worries. They even responded to my suggestions back in March on how to format citations. But then the following day went back to incorrectly citing articles, and received a warning then (3/18) as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with the assessment re notability. I would suggest, however, before escalating the ref/draft issues to ANI, to have another go at making it entirely clear to the editor that their single provided reference is broken. I don't think that has been brought home to them yet, and arguably addressing that would fix the main problem. While I fear that they are just ignoring their talk page, particularly after the recent notification storm - we probably should do due diligence, leave a clear message to that effect, and wait a day or so. You know ANI'll pounce on that otherwise, and maybe not without reason. I shall do that now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I added a comment to your note on their talk page Elmidae. I think it would be a sign of good faith if they went back over the mass of incorrect articles and corrected the sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have a brief look at some of the articles created by PPP001, there are mostly stating the ruling political parties of some small towns/areas in the Malaysia states (see info boxes) of Sabah, Pahang, Melaka (I didnt check all the 100+ articles and maybe there some other states as well). Most of the dead links pointed to "Election Commission of Malaysia", Malaysia govt website - [4]. I believe with some many 'moved to draft' messages and messages left by onel5969, the editors knows the issues involved but since the article could be just recreated, and not deleted, the trend continued. If the draft is recreated in same article with exactly content in the mainspace, we could tag {{histmerge}} and admin Anthony Appleyard would remove the draft copy and keep the mainspace copy. I have nominated for CSD#G6 and Anthony declined it and did the histmerge instead but other admin would accept the CSD#G6 and deleted the mainspace article and keep the draft copy. (Note, when there is the same name in draft copy, the mainspace copy can not be moved to draft space). I noticed there are so many cases that after pages had been moved to draft pages and they are recreated in mainspace (mean 2 exact copies of the article - one in mainspace and one in draft space). Even after communicate with the creator and advise them to add sources, the creator just dont take up the suggestions and just leave the pages as they are since the pages are in the mainspace and are not deleted. Anthony, please advise which method is the correct one (histmerge or CSD#G6). thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA, Onel5969, Barkeep49, and Elmidae: If the two pages involved are X and Draft:X, it likely depends on how noteworthy the place or area X or its local politics is, locally or across the world, and whether or not the pages X and Draft:X (including any deleted edits that either of them has) are WP:Parallel histories with each other, and whether the histories of X and/or Draft:X are composed only or largely of redirects, and suchlike considerations. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Anthony Appleyard Thank you for your explanation; however, it seems that is some considerable variable which rather complicated. Let's see a season sport article, one in draft space and one is recreated later in main space, which identification in article name and exact content by the same creator, what should be do? histmerge or CSD#G6 on main space copy? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - And they are back to simply recreating the articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Most likely, I have seen many that times. What we could do under the present policies/guidelines is either hoping someone to add some sources or we think it is not a notable article then we do a WP:BEFORE prior AfD . It is a little hard to help adding sources or do a BEFORE especially if those sources would most likely in their local languages. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• @CASSIOPEIA, Sam Sailor, HitroMilanese, Barkeep49, and Elmidae: - Pinging interested editors to the opening of an ANI discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PPP001 mass creating uncited stubs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Newsletter?

The NPP Reviews has a newsletter. Is there a mainpage for it? Or an archive? I can't find it anywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Newsletter archive --DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mainspace redirects and the NPP backlog

Hi sorry I haven't been around much RL issues plan on starting back up with NPP soon! I do have a question though do mainspace redirects that need reviewing count towards the backlog numbers? I tried looking for this answer before but couldn't find it. It is possible I may have overlooked it. Cheers! Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

They need doing but they don't count in the article backlog # as far as I understand. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Alucard 16, Yeah we don't count them because they are significantly easier to process than the article reviews, and the backlog of redirects tends to 'take care of itself'. I know that is due to very diligent people working on it, but it still stands that we rarely have to bring special attention to it to make sure the redirect backlog doesn't get out of hand. We do however count redirect reviews toward award values and am very thankful to all reviewers that regularly review redirects, as it is relatively thankless gnomish work, but needs to be done. Hope that clarifies the answer to your question. Currently there are about 7000 unreviewed redirects, a bit more than the number of articles, and it tends to float around a number a bit more than the number of unreviewed articles. The redirects are generally not as urgent as articles as they don't generally have COI or PROMO issues, though there can be issues with people abusing them in some instances, so they still have to be reviewed individually. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere - There is a difference between articles and redirects to be reviewed, however. Articles will remain in the queue until they are reviewed, however redirects which are not reviewed within 30 days of creation fall off the list.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhhh? Are you sure? Where is this documented? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure. I don't know if it's documented anywhere, Insertcleverphrasehere, but I noticed it about 6 months ago. When I come across a new article which is either very well written, or very poorly written, I usually take a look at that editor's creation history, and check back. I'd review their articles and their redirects. I noticed that there might be articles still in the queue older than a month, but not redirects. So when I would click on the redirect, there was no option to review or patrol. Clicking the "logs", I noticed no other reviewer had reviewed it. So then I changed my filter to just "redirects" (which I just did). Right now, there are only 3 redirects from pre March 18. And all of those are redirects which had an article created, and then someone reverted back to a redirect within the last day or so. For example, the oldest ones are by an editor called Tokenzero. If you go to their creation history, and click on the oldest one from 3/18, Territ. Politics Gov., you'll see that it isn't looking to be reviewed/patrolled, and that no reviewer reviewed it. Unlike Politique afr., which I just reviewed.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere Redirect pages creation usually is free of copyvio or promo but my understanding is that all articles regardless create via NPP or AfC would need to go through reviewed except for editors have autopatroll right. Could we close this hole to have redirect article to be review same as the rest. Not sure how much work is involved to place to have additional "Redirect" button next "Article for Creation' in New Page Feed page. Your comments and thought? cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Using Special:NewPages you can filter with the tag of mw-new-redirect to see just pages that were created as redirects, and by selecting "show redirects" you can see pages created as redirects that may or may not still be redirects (but usually are). If you want to tell them apart, I'd recommend User:BrandonXLF/GreenRedirects.js. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 As always, editors who know how to write scripts/software programming provide great help. Thank you Danny. I have downloaded the recommended script, and believe those lines highlighted in yellow (stated new redirect at the end of the line) are what you referred to as "telling them apart". If not pls advise. Thank you in advance.cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: sorry, but nope. The pages in yellow are the ones that have not yet been patrolled. From the big notice at the top, Yellow highlights indicate pages that have not yet been patrolled. The ones that are not highlighted have already been patrolled - to hide them, click "hide patrolled edits." The redirects are green links instead of blue, though the contrast isn't the best. Maybe another color would be better for this task, but for me I can tell the difference. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 Appreciate for the info and thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, I'm going to be looking into this and looking to get this fixed. as far as I'm concerned redirects should not be falling off the back of the queue as this can lead to stuff falling through the cracks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere - I agree. Although most redirects are innocuous, and as per WP:CHEAP, I rarely see a redirect which can't be in some way justified. But it does happen, and with enough frequency that getting them approved. But be ready, I'm guessing that currently about 40-100 fall off the queue every day. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, those of us who are active need to step up our game and make a point of clearing the end of this backlog. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the replies everyone . Insertcleverphrasehere if a redirect is turned into an article or vice versa don't they automatically get added back to our NPP queue for us to review again? I thought that was a measure put in place so we don't have redirects turning into bad articles that normally wouldn't pass the NPP process. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A little burnt

Okay folks... I'm a little burnt out at this. This past 6 weeks or so, I've begun to cut back, and while I'm not going to stop, I am going to reduce the amount of time I spend on this project. Just wanted to give you all a heads up. Hope you all understand. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969 Good day. All of us would understand your situation as you are the most hardworking NPP reviewer around for long time. Take a little rest and sip some coffee/tea. cheers and thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere Just a note, long time NNP reviewer, PRehse, is taking a wiki break as well. Unreveiwed articles would jump up significantly as both Onel5969 and PRehse are absent/semi absent for the next few months. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Boleyn still on a wikibreak too? I have been on n off too, so i dont know much about recent updates. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

From Boleyn's contribution log, they are active. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA, when I get back from Easter holiday I’ll look toward sending out some adverts to attract some new NPR reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 08:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Onel is to be thanked for his work for this project - he had been keeping us afloat (over the last year he's done more than the next 5 most prolific reviewers combined/about the same number of reviews as the 20th-100th most active reviewers). It's not a surprise that the queue is growing as he cuts back after such dedicated work to this area of improvement. We did a backlog drive last June. Maybe think about doing one again? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

onel5969, take your well-deserved rest; best to cut back before you feel fully burnt out. Your hard work has been reatly appreciated. Usernamekiran, I'm much less active than I was, but still editing somewhat. Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-disclosed paid editing

Looks pretty obvious User:TGPMatt has an undisclosed COI and potentially receives payment for their editing. I'm not sure of the protocol for dealing with this, perhaps an admin can deal with it? Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Polyamorph good day. Saw you have send COI message on involved user's talk page.

cc here admin @Joe Roe:.

WP:PAID editors need to go through AfC to create articles. From their user hist the user has indicated the editor is a professional write (date July 2015). The editor published 2 articles, OneFamily (June 2016) [5] and Job Today (Oct 2017) [6] without going through AfC. I am not sure the editor was paid to write these two pages, if they are, then we could more the two pages back to Draft space. Cheer. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Toolbar broken again?

When patrolling from the oldest side of the queue the advance next article button appears to once again have broken. Anyone remember the PHAB ticket about this that I could resurrect? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ooh bonus fun. Seems to only be broken for really old articles. When I get to 2018 articles it seems to be working fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Broken for 2004 Car body style -> 2009 Joan Oldcastle, 4th Baroness Cobham, works for 2009 Joan Oldcastle, 4th Baroness Cobham -> 2018 USATF Junior Championships. So, yeah; beats me. May I add I wasn't even aware of this button's function 'til now :p - The NPP browser is still in abeyance, which irks me more... hope it will get ported to the new code base at some point... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae I'm not too hopeful on that front. Thanks for confirming that you see the error too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I've opend a phab ticket. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions about some articles

Hi everyone I just have a question about the articles I Can See Your Voice Thailand, I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 1), I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 2) and I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 3). An editor from Thai Wikipedia brought these articles to the attention of WP:TV mainly due to the majority of the content like the tables in the season articles being unsourced. It seems he was reaching out to English Wikipedia because there is a dispute going on over at Thai Wikipedia about including tables that are unsourced (from what I can tell by Google Translate) and their existence on English Wikipedia was brought up. When looking at the articles all but season 2 share the same exact sources (from 2016). Season 2 is the only one that has sources unique to it but a lot of information is unsourced. There was 1 source that was used to explain the format in all articles but I removed it because the page said its source was Wikipedia. My understanding of the flowcharts would have been to send the three season articles to draftspace and leave the creator a note. I'm just wandering if I'm on the right track there. I tagged the articles and left a note on the talk page of the parent about all the issues I tagged the articles for in hopes of someone who speaks Thai can fix them. However lets say after 2-3 months if the same issues persist and the season articles were not improved still would it be acceptable to send them to draftspace? Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Outside of WP:NSEASON I am not aware of any subject requirements saying an article needs to be mostly prose. Either the individual seasons are notable or they are not. If they are not they should be redirected to the main article which seems to be clearly notable. They are not, in my mind, candidates for DRAFTIFY. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Tables are okay there isn't anything wrong with tables in a TV season article most of them have tables in fact. The point was should the season articles been moved to draftspace because they failed verifiability? What prose the three season articles have heavily depended on an unreliable source that credited a Wikipedia for its information. The first and third article use the same 2 sources as the parent article in the lead sentence. This essentially leaves all the season articles without any sources for 90% of its prose. That alone would have caused me to move the articles to draftspace or to send them to AfD. The prose in the articles is structured more like a fan-site than an encyclopedia (i.e. using color text to convey important information when it isn't needed). Notability is a different subject as this adaptation has no notability in the English speaking world but does in Thailand. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Alucard 16 Are they unverified or unverifiable? I"m guessing it's the former in which case, because it's not BLP, I don't see a problem - it's an article waiting to be improved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirect review guidelines?

As I alluded in an earlier discussion, I've taken it upon myself to clear the back end of the redirects queue each day so that we're always at least two days ahead of the auto-approve deadline of onr month. In doing so, I've realized that while we have fairly meticulous instructions for reviewing articles, we don't really have anything for redirects. In the meantime I've been relying on the guidelines at WP:REDIRECT and my personal judgment, but this leaves some gray area. For example, what sorts of misspellings are or aren't acceptable for redirects? When, if ever, should a redirect from an alternative capitalization be deleted? What standards of verifiability should we be evaluating against when determining if a redirect from an alternate name or possibly-related concept is appropriate? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill - I follow the same rules that you just outlined above. I've also found it helpful to check out WP:RFD and look at the discussions there to see what other other editors think, as well as the section WP:RFD#DELETE. I also keep WP:CHEAP in mind. In regards to misspellings/alternate spellings or capitalizations, I almost always mark them reviewed. One thing which has evolved recently are redirects which have a missing space. It used to be that editors thought these were acceptable, but recent consensus is that these are now implausible search terms. Over all, other than the alt spellings, plural/singular, abbreviations, etc. I check to make sure the redirect is mentioned at the target. Hope this helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately I am pretty strongly on team "Do whatever captures your interest to improve the encylopedia" but think that redirects not getting reviewed is fairly low risk for the encyclopedia at a time of the queue steadily growing longer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, while I think you're right in general, the situations aren't quite analogous; the page review queue may be long, but I'm under the impression that few-to-no articles actually hit the 3-month deadline. If I had to choose between a redirect getting through unreviewed or an article, I would choose the redirect every time, but that's not quite the trade-off here. For what it's worth, I've already come across several ORish and/or promotional redirects that would have otherwise entered the encyclopedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Automation?

• Having done this for a few days now, I'm realizing that there's a lot of uncontroversial redirects that could probably be handled by a bot. Examples include: redirects from Foo (disambiguation) to Foo where Foo is a dab, redirects to biography articles that use include/exclude middle names and/or initials, redirects where the target has the redirect title included in bold in the lead or in a section heading. I'm sure I could think of some more examples. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I think I can do this myself once I've read through the relevant documentation and then I'll raise the issue on the relevant technical board, but I figured I would raise this issue here in case anyone has relevant input. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Started a discussion at WP:Bot requests#Automating new redirect patrolling for uncontroversial redirects _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Although not someone who could create a bot, probably at least 50% of redirect creations could be handled by a bot. Anyway to include valid redirects from a foreign language? There are several editors who create lots of redirects from Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Cyrillic versions of the names here on English Wiki.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969, unfortunately I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be. For Cyrillic (and other phonetic scripts such as Korean and maybe even abjads like Hebraic and Arabic scripts) you could potentially do that automatically by setting up a dictionary of letter equivalences, although it wouldn't be foolproof (still, the false positive would just be the equivalent of accepting a misspelling. Worst case scenario would be if there's an epithet that is a short edit distance from that word). Another strategy (although I don't know how technically feasible it is) would be to try to scrape the titles of other language articles linked to the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Brief hiatus

I know that I've written a half dozen comments to the effect that I would be reviewing the backend of the redirect queue, but due to work and life circumstances I'm going to need to step back a bit this week. I should be back to normal activity levels starting Sunday. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill thank you and have a good break. see you next week. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Move request

Can someone able to make moves over page histories please deal with my requests here as a matter of urgency? An editor has made a total pigs ear of Electronic dance music and its talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Polyamorph Hi, click "Page" menu at the top of the page, and select "Move page". Change the name accordingly and uncheck "Leave a redirect behind" then click move page. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I could not do that because the page has history after a bot fixed the double redirect. It looks like one of my move requests has been dealt with, still the talk page to deal with. I've also reported the editor as they seem to have made several disruptive page moves. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Completed by Reaper Eternal after disruption report. Polyamorph (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes requested

on Radio Dobre Vibracije and Radio Aktivan. I moved both of them to drafts, only for the author to move them back (without any edits to improve them) with the summary revert. I don't want to get into a move war, but I don't believe they are ready for mainspace at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 At the present stages, both of them are not ready in mainspace. Some of us had talk about this before on previous thread that editors keep on moving unready page (without sources) page to mainspace or recreate a same article (same title and same content) on mainspace when we moved the page to draft (one copy in draft and one copy in mainspace). We could encourage the editor to provide IRS or we could nominate for AfD. Radio station articles usually get deleted in AfD as no many of them would provide IRS to justify they meet notability requirement. Existing not equal to meeting notability. Comments from other reviewers? CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say something different. I don't have a lot of direct experience at AfD with radio stations but WP:BCASTOUTCOMES suggests that some level of station would be notable. I can't really tell what level of wattage it has which is part and parcel of the problem with the article but would suggest that the external links are functioning as a kind of reference, if primary and thus not RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some are notable. What I meant was radio station which not IRS provided would usually get deleted in AfD. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Those two aren't the only ones, I found a few more by the same author. They seem to be systematically adding stubs about Croatian-language radio stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  All are unsourced save for external links to the station's website, which of course is in Croatian, the regulatory agency that approves radio stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the station's Facebook page. I have no idea if the Croatian-language Wikipedia has articles on them. I've tagged them as being unsourced, and left a note for the creator. I think there may be language barrier issues with the article creator. Personally my inclination is to leave it at that. They are verifiable from the external links. There is not enough content in the articles to require slews of sources to support the content. Notability is a concern, but not enough of one for me to think AFD is worth bothering with in this instance. Someone has proded one of them, which if you really think they need to go you could do for the others (except one had a speedy declined already, so not that one). However, I honestly think these are fine to leave where they are. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As an afterthought, maybe we could redirect them all to List of radio stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although that list doesn't include frequencies, which the author included in the stubs. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone creating a string of troublesome articles requires some communication with them. I see ONUnicorn has now done this. Hopefully they heed this warning otherwise it could be considered a behavior issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeking your input for the New Pages Feed improvement wishlist project

Hello all. I'm Niharika Kohli; I'm a product manager on the Community Tech team at WMF. Our team is kicking off its work on the NPP and Page Curation improvements wishlist request from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. I invite you all to watch the project page and provide your valuable input in the discussions on the talk page (especially this recent one). I will be creating more talk page threads to get feedback as we delve into more complicated tickets in the near term. Hope to hear from you all. Thanks! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)