Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Does the community still want moved pages to be unreviewed

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Does the community still want moved pages to be unreviewed. Sohom (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking additional NPP recruitment coordinator

It's no secret that our backlogs have been continuously growing for a while now, seemingly only held off from going completely out of control by backlog drives.

As such, in an effort to help with this issue, the coordinator team is looking for individuals interested in taking on additional roles. To be more specific, we're looking for someone interested in helping to recruit individuals and to nominate others for the autopatrolled user right. Please let us know here, privately, or elsewhere, if you'd be interested in volunteering. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that anybody can nominate another editor for this right at WP:PERM/A. If you find yourself marking many articles by the same editor as reviewed, and they've created more than 25 articles, please do nominate them. It's a very helpful tool in keeping the backlog under control. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a special requirement as to who can volunteer to nominate and invite? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Bug with "no citations" issue?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T371168

Page Curation lists "No citations - This page does not cite any sources" as one of the possible issues with this revision of Nakadomari (archaeological site). I can understand that it might miss references cited in unusual ways, but this has {{cite}} templates in footnotes and a {{reflist}} under the heading "references" – completely standard. Can anybody figure out what's going on? Is this a bug? – Joe (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay it seems the issues don't stick to old revisions, so you'll have to trust me it was there. It disappeared after this edit. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is generated by a search of the article's unparsed text looking for, or rather the lack of, <ref> or <ref name within the text. It generates the 'No citations' tag in articles with refs using the short footnotes template {{sfn}} and in articles with a general references section but no inline references, neither of which contain <ref> or <ref name.

It also seems to ignore refs within a template such as {{Music ratings}}. I don't know if this is deliberate with the logic that templates only provide supplemental information and its the body of the text that needs to be examined?

None of which is applicable here. I did think it might be a cache problem, an earlier version not having refs and the tag remaining after refs have been added, but Nakadomari (archaeological site) has had refs from it's creation. This is not the first time I have come across this but can't see any reason why it happens.--John B123 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you put a writeup of this problem on Phabricator, given that it happened after a move, I wonder if it is a regression, however, it probably needs further analysis. Sohom (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't provide a reproducible example but I can copy the above to phabricator, if it helps? – Joe (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Pavel Romanov (drummer) is currently showing in the queue as having no citations but is referenced. 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections was showing as having no citations but the tag disappeared after I added {{uncategorised}} to the page. Both of these articles have recently been moved. Possibly related, the content snippet in the feed for Pavel Romanov (drummer) shows REDIRECT Pavel Romanov (drummer) and the snippet for 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections showed REDIRECT 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections prior to my edit. --John B123 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Also No. 29 Squadron PAF, Dan Phillips (musician), Kampong Ku F.C. and Al-Jazira Front (Anglo-Turkish War, 1918–1923) are referenced but show up in the queue as having no citations and have 'Redirect (article name)' as the content snippet. All 4 have been recently moved and had no edits since the move. It would seem moving the page causes the problem which resolves when you edit the page. I have no experience of Phabricator so perhaps somebody else could add it there. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these examples. I was able to reproduce on testwiki. Confirmed bug, will fix. phab:T371168 –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Needs more sources to establish notability

I'd like to understand better what reviewers mean when they move an article to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability – one of the canned reasons provided by the draftify script. More specifically, in what circumstances do you expect sources establishing notability to be present in an article? And how do you foresee the creator responding to this rationale?

Take Draft:Christopher Clemens for example, recently draftified for this reason by Hey man im josh (sorry, I don't mean to criticise this action specifically, I just needed an example and it's representative). It has one citation to one source that fully verifies the current content. If we assume that there are more sources available, where should they be placed? Adding an inline citation to the current text would be superfluous because it is already fully verified, and they might not actually support that material. Is it expected that the creator expand the article with the additional sources? Or can they be provided elsewhere, e.g. in a further reading section, on the talk page, or to the reviewer directly? In either case, how is it communicated to the creator that a) this is what they should do and b) they should have done so in the first place? – Joe (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree the single reference fully verifies the content. It doesn't verify he is American, an astronomer, a physicist or that he obtained a PhD at the University of Texas at Austin. It does say he was chair of the department of physics and astronomy, but that doesn't make him an astronomer or a physicist. His predecessor in the role, Bob Blouin, is a professor in the pharmaceutical division of the department.

As notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, an article with only one source cannot show that the subject is notable. The purpose of NPP is to ensure new articles meet, as a minimum, the core content policies, one of which is notability. It's beyond the scope of NPP to advise how editors should should change the article to make it compliant. (Although most patrollers would offer advice if asked). There are various help pages such as Help:Your first article which gives advice on most issues that come to light during NPP, or the Village Pump where advice can be sought.

The bigger question here is how we educate (generally) newer users about core policies so we don't get into these situations, rather than how patrollers deal with them. --John B123 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks John. That article was just an example; the broader point is that we can assume that verifiability was not the reason it was removed from mainspace because none of those claims were highlighted as lacking citations.

Notability actually isn't a core content policy or even a policy at at all. That's one reason that I've always said that NPP shouldn't worry about it too much. But that aside, and taking your point that is isn't NPPers job to coach editors, the purpose of draftifying articles is supposed to be to allow space for their improvement. Assuming they can find resources like WP:YFA themselves, how is an editor expected to improve an article that lacks sources establishing notability? – Joe (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding matters of notability for biographical subjects, there are differing schools of thought that are represented on the "Notability (people)" (WT:BIO) Talk page – where there is well informed, robust, and ample discussion (sometimes to a fault). From what I've gleaned there, it seems likely that for the purposes of NPP, someone who is the provost of a major American university such as UNC Chapel Hill (sticking with the example above) would be presumed to be notable and is very likely to meet WP:GNG via WP:SNG (e.g., WP:ANYBIO #1, 2, and possibly 3; WP:NACADEMIC #5, 6, etc.; or just plain WP:COMMONSENSE). Although consensus remains elusive (and seemingly somewhat unlikely), WT:BIO is an excellent place to gain a better understanding of the nuances involved (although perhaps slightly advanced for the greenest of the WP:YFA crowd). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability can be a minefield, especially SNGs. I've seen numerous debates at AfD and RfC with widely differing opinions on SNGs. SNGs can themselves be confusing, for example, and relevant here: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes item 6c Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). So a provost may or may not be notable under the SNG. --John B123 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's (IMO) practical advice for articles like the example. Do one of these three:

1. Establish meeting GNG. Include at least two independent published sources that cover him in depth
2. Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in WP:NACADEMIC
3. Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's say the creator goes with #1. How, specifically, should they include these two sources in the article? – Joe (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m a little confused by this question because you’ve already suggested many perfectly fine ways: hanging them on an existing sentence they verify; expanding the article; sticking them in a “further reading” section; sticking them on the talk page. If someone linked them on my talk page as the reviewer, that would be less helpful but I’d add them to the article myself and then undraftify. All of those options would make it clear to the reviewer that notability is met. Is there a reason you think there would only be one specific right way? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, I'm asking to confirm that those are the kind of things reviewers expect to happen after draftifying an article, and/or whether one way is preferred over others (though no there doesn't necessarily have to be one). I'm also trying to put myself in the shoes of a newer editor and imagine, given the rather concise message they get about the draftification, a) how they would know that those are their options and b) which one to pick. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just giving a suggested way to navigate the complex situation. I think that inclusion of the GNG sources is the important thing under #1 and any of the many ways would be fine. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I typically expect a newer editor will use the AfC process to make articles, and indeed draftification is a nudge that the editor in question ought to use that process. When I review at AfC is when I put in the effort to handhold. If an editor wants to create directly in mainspace I tend to feel like they should know what notability is and how to add a source to an article. (When they started the article, after all, they got a pop up with many useful tips, including WP:YFA and the article wizard.) If they don’t know these things, they can ask at the teahouse or their wiki-mentor (if they were assigned one). Or click any of the thirteen informative links in the draft template that gets placed on the article after draftification. Are you seeing good-faith editors getting draftified and not understanding what they need to do to address it? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't really understand how you're supposed to respond to this issue, and I'm not particularly new. It's not a question of knowing how to cite sources technically, but if you already know that the subject is notable, and you've already cited sources for all the information that's actually in the article, then why and how are you supposed to produce these extra sources? I don't know what new editors think about draftifications (it'd be great if someone did a proper study of that one of these days), but what I see is that a lot of creators who receive this message simply abandon their article, moreso than more straightforward issues like "has no sources" or "you have a conflict of interest". A reasonable hypothesis to explain that is that they don't understand what to do, but I don't know for sure.

I'm getting the impression that what many reviewers (NPP and AfC) want to see is a list of GNG-qualifying sources in the references section of an article. In practice, this means that in most cases the creator will have to write the article around these sources, which is not necessarily an obvious thing to do. The 'old fashioned' view of notability is that it is a quality of the topic that is discussed at AfD, not something that shapes the content of the article – that comes mainly down to WP:NPOV#What to include and exclude. Current policies and guidelines still reflect that view. If the article ends up in draftspace the creator will probably get the hint, because for better or worse AfC has codified "GNG sources up-front" as an extra requirement of that process, but that doesn't help them get it right in the first place and we shouldn't be enforcing the AfC project's local consensus in mainspace (I also don't think your view that new editors ought to use AfC is widely-held or supported by policy, it is optional). An editor that simply familiarises themselves with written policies and creates an article directly is likely to be surprised by the expectation to cite GNG-qualifying sources, because not only is that expectation not in those policies, it is apparently contradicted by several of them (e.g. WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE). That seems like a problem to me. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I never even run into new editors anymore. If there are new editors, they are usually pulled in by the administrative side of things and not writing articles. New editors are nudged toward AfC where they have to wait 3+ months for someone look at their draft, which by that time any enthusiasm they had will likely be gone if they even remember to come back. And with the move away from easy-to-understand SNGs in recent years towards GNG-only on Wikipedia, their draft will likely get declined anyway. And you have to have 500+ edits and 6+ months to get access to Newspapers.com (at least you used to, I don't see any guidance at WP:NEWSPAPERS about requirements). Newspapers.com only has stuff from the USA anyway. And all of that is assuming any new editors can even find WP:NEWSPAPERS. There are too many hoops to jump through for new editors nowadays. Most just don't bother. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to run into new editors more often and help them maintain the spark of joy that wikipedia can bring, you might consider signing up as a mentor. Some info on that feature here. Signup at Special:EnrollAsMentor. Automatically-assigned newbies will get a little interface that makes it easy for them to ask you questions at your talk page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Notability is confusing. But for most cases where this comes up (people, bands, businesses, performers, recordings, video products ) the subject usually doesn't meet an SNG requirement, and "GNG sources up front" is great advice and a practical necessity. If one can't find them, it probably shouldn't be a separate article. And when you do find them, they are what to build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Joe has correctly identified a tension within the enwiki community about article creation - there is an "older" view that notability inheres in topics that meet GNG or a relevant SNG, and that the notability of the topic need not necessarily be present in initial article sourcing (though sometimes, as with biographies of living people, sources should be present).

Then there is a "newer" view that the notability of a topic should be demonstrated in all published versions of each article through GNG/NBASIC/NORG-level sourcing (depending on the topic). NPP and AfC reviewers tend to be acculturated in this newer view, and have been known to make contributions (e.g., at AfD and policy discussions) that implicitly or explicitly deny that the "older" view exists or that it continues to be reflected in enwiki policy (which it generally does).

This tension does give rise to various issues, but I'm not sure what can be done about it, apart from more people becoming aware that these two perspectives are both reasonably widely held. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, wp:notability is complicated but in my ~15 years I haven't seen any big shift or overarching view at AFC or NPP. Also NPP'ers I think simply try to implement the wp:notability guidelines as written. So it simply means meeting GNG or a recognized SNG. At AFC the reviewers often don't follow the AFC standard which is that if it has a good chance of surviving at AFD it should be passed. Which most of the time boils down to meeting/ not meeting wp:notability. Often I've seen afc reviewers decline articles for different criteria such as article quality issues. Another layer of complexity is that the defacto GNG standard at AFC is a bit more lenient in some areas than a strict interpretation of GNG and it takes a few thousand reviews and a close look at a few hundred AFD's to try to learn what that standard is. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I disagree about one key aspect of this - NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval, and WP:N doesn't carry that requirement. I didn't mean to imply that NPP or AfC standards had changed over time, either; I just meant that when AfC and NPP were introduced, they imposed a standard that was different from WP:N as it already existed.

The only thing that I might see as temporal is the "leaching" of AfC and NPP-derived norms into AfD discussions: I haven't done any systematic study, but I doubt that as many editors based their AfD !votes on the current sourcing of an article, back in Ye Olden Dayes (but of course, I could be entirely wrong about that). Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've certainly seen that kind of drift and tension over my time here. I don't think it can be waved away as NPPers enforcing GNG "as written" – because you'll find nothing there about citing sources in articles for notability purposes or assessing the notability of a subject based on the sources in the article (quite the opposite). I'm not here to grouch and say that the old ways are automatically better, but it is a problem if de facto expectations have diverged from written expectations, because newbies only have a chance of learning the latter. Like Newimpartial I'm unsure of what to do about it: whether to try and get the new generation of NPPers to return to policy as written, or to try to adapt policy and better inform creators about the new regime. Neither are easy, which is probably why this tension has been left to grow for so long. My aim here was to try and better understand what the de facto expectations are, to look for places where we might meet in the middle.

As for AfC, it's always been a little askew of the wider community when it comes to eventualism vs. immediatism (a function of seeing only the worst articles, I suppose). I suspect that part of the explanation for NPP's drift in that direction is that from when we set up the NPR user right in 2016, we focused heavily on recruiting AfC reviewers rather than say AfD regulars or people who've written a lot of new articles. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the above "NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval" that is more of a practical reality than a philosophy. What is the practical alternative? The impossible hypothetical .......for a reviewer to solidly determine that GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world before declining, draftifying or AFD'ing an article? North8000 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The alternative is not to worry about notability unless there's a specific reason to doubt it and/or compounding problems. Many reviewers already work this way and have done for years. And if there is a reason to suspect the subject is not notable, take it to AfD after doing the usual due diligence, which does not require establishing that "GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world". – Joe (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think an article can be notable without containing the sources in the article. It is part of WP:BEFORE that these sources must be checked before filing an AFD. However this must also be balanced with the current practice of requiring at least some sources in the article to avoid draftification or BLPPROD. Finally, I am pretty tired of talking about this. It is just a rehash of the inclusionist vs deletionist and anti-draftspace vs pro-draftspace tensions that have been discussed in a dozen places around Wikipedia over the last year or two. There is very little to be gained from talking about it over and over again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• @Joe Roe: Some reviewers may not evaluate overall notability, but I always do. With experience comes a bit of comfort in doing so.

I don't personally draftify borderline cases. I may however draftify when there's no verifiable claim to notability. I wouldn't do so for an obvious chance of a WP:NPOL or WP:NGEO pass, but I'd be much more likely to do it for something that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NSONG, or WP:NALBUM. If it's not an obvious claim, and there's significant work to be done, I'll consider it. If it's been a few days, especially if there were maintenance tags added that weren't addressed, I'll be more likely to consider it.

I believe you also follow the page that tracks draftifications, in which case you're probably aware that I have reversed hundreds of draftifications, specifically actually referencing a close you made about the 90 day limit.

There's not a hard line in the sand and it's often a gut feet. I think I'm being kinder by sending to draft space instead of AfD at times, that way people can work on it.

I think if you review my draft log you will see somewhat of a pattern, and I like to think most of them are at least ones someone could reasonably argue in favour of. Draft space is optional. I'll never double draftify a page, but I do believe in its usage.

To be clear, I'm also open to criticisms. I'm also aware you're not one in favour of over using draft space. I think there's a middle ground higher than your threshold, but I respect the argument you're making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs)

@Hey man im josh: I'm sorry, I really don't mean to criticise your action here. As you gathered I have seen many of your moves to and from draftspace, and if I thought you were doing something wrong I would have told you. I used an article that you draftified as an example precisely because I know that you're an experienced and confident reviewer, and that seemed fairer than picking on a newer reviewer. I'm not here to make an argument against draftifying, just to better understand expectations regarding this specific reason and how it can be reconciled with written policies and guidelines (it is not currently documented in WP:DRAFTIFY or anywhere else as far as I can tell).

You're of course welcome to assess notability when reviewing. If I'm understanding you correctly, when you use this reason (at least in cases in this), you actually have checked for notability and not found it, but want to give the creator a chance to prove otherwise? I hadn't considered that possibility. It seems a much more promising starting point for untying this knot. But if you don't mind elaborating further, do you not worry that this reduces the chance that another editor (i.e. not the creator), would find the sources, as often happens at AfD? – Joe (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if NPP's didn't have to worry about wp:notability our job would be immensely easy. I could probably OK 1,000 articles per hour. And Wikipedia would become several billion resumes, advertisements for businesses and people in trades and businesses, and their products and services. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well great news, you don't have to. No on-wiki guideline ever said that you did. And you can delete things for being resumes or being an advert, regardless of notability. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with North here. Whilst resumes and adverts can be deleted, that's more about writing style than subject. You can still write about about a non-notable person, business or product without it coming across as an advert or resume. Consider another case, every track a fans favourite band/singer has ever recorded having it's own article. We already see this attempted at the back of the NPP queue with redirects of songs or albums being converted to stubs with little content except a track listing or a 'nth track of X album' and a list of band members. IMO NPP not checking for notability opens the floodgates and could lead to Wikipedia being more of a collection of information than an encyclopaedia. --John B123 (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, "NPP doesn't have to systematically check notability" is not a suggestion, it's a description of the current reality. The idea that notability is our job is relatively new; anecdotally I started hearing it 5-6 years ago (I suspect WP:ACPERM has a lot to do with it, since before then we were so pressed with blatant junk that it would have been absurd to suggest that we should also become the enforcers of the GNG cult). Many of us still stick to that pragmatic approach to reviewing and the house isn't falling down around us, just like it didn't in the first ~10 years of NPP when it was almost exclusively focused on CSD tagging. If an article is on a potentially non-notable subject but isn't a resume, advert, or similar violation of WP:NOT, then you're automatically out of the realm of pressing problems that NPP needs to deal with right now and into the murky swamp of articles to maybe AfD at some point. For example, many editors have no problem with album articles that mainly consist of track listing, that's why we have so many of them. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to put Your excellent essay Seven tips for new page patrolling is helpful.someplace where it could be more easily found? It would be a good read for anyone who is new to NPP (and, for that matter, the old-guard too). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: Strike part of the above: it is already linked at the bottom of the Tutorial Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl3phact0 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, there's a lot of worry about the NPP backlog, and "don't worry about notability" being clearly communicated probably would help cut it really dramatically. Of course, obviously unsuitable articles or ones that are at the "well, I can't quite A7 it, but..." level are still NPP's problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the "Check for copyvio"?

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

@SunDawn: Not sure if there was a dedicated NPP copyvio tool, though I have been using User:The Earwig/copyvios.js to add a "copyvio check" link to my main toolbar. ^Complex/_Rational 01:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Another option, which I prefer and use, is MoreMenu, which adds a bunch of useful links in addition to this tool in a drop-down. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js, which normally displays in the toolbar info pane, no longer displays? Perhaps we inadvertently broke it during the vue migration. Maybe an HTML class name changed. Cc DannyS712 –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, its broken, probably from the rewrite in Vue - I'll add this to my todo list --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn @ComplexRational @Novem Linguae @TechnoSquirrel69 should be fixed now --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you sir! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)