Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

The Dr. Oz Show

Can someone have a dig into this article's history? Near as I can tell, it was an article for a long time, but was turned into a redirect to its creator in October of 2017, a move which seemed to have occurred without discussion. Now it's a stub article again, created by a brand new account, and I have no idea what i'm supposed to do with this. The show is probably notable, but it was turned into a redirect, though there didn't seem to be a whole lot of consensus around that redirect. Either way, its 1am here. Xevus11 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

University of Applied Sciences Campus Vienna

have reviewed the above article, however its not showing up on Google? (stats indicate 2 redirects[1])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• neglected to mention List of universities in Austria does come up when I Google the aforementioned article(and the list contains a link to University of Applied Sciences Campus Vienna )?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Policy Question

Hello, I just became a New Pages Reviewer. Is there a policy on reviewing an article for which I have already made some contributions as a standard editor? Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we all make changes to worthwhile articles to get them over the hurdle. Whether it's disambiguation, adding categories & projects, or general copyediting. If we're talking about Kadumkappi, even after your fixes, it's confused about whether it's about the album Kadumkappi or the single Parayathe Parayunna. It looks like an WP:A9 to me. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cabayi -- Actually my question was meant to be general, but it is interesting that you checked out Kadumkappi, for which I addressed the formatting while finding it to be confusing at the root. I will keep an eye on that page to see if the creator can add anything that clears things up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

doomsdayer520, As a general principle then... Yes you can. But, for an author who is more engaged with wikipedia than this one, it might be more useful to point out the shortcomings to the article's author so that they can fix it, learn from the experience, and create a better article next time round. It all depends on your gut feeling about the author's future intentions on Wikipedia and maximising the return for your effort. Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, be cognisant of paid editing, and COI editing, and try to avoid letting them buy-one-get-one-free. For other stuff: a mix of tagging, fixing stuff yourself, and informing the author how to fix it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

What pages should be patrolled?

I'm not a new page reviewer, so this is mostly just out of curiosity, as well as the fact that I might apply for the permission sometime in the future. Should only mainspace articles be patrolled? Or should mainspace redirects be patrolled as well? And should anything besides the mainspace (talk pages, user pages, etc.) be patrolled? The reason I'm asking is because quite a few of the redirects I've created have been patrolled, but the vast majority haven't, while almost all of the mainspace articles I've created, have been. Also, a few of the user pages I've created have been patrolled as well. So I'm just genuinely curious what pages should be marked as patrolled, and it would also be helpful to know if I ever do become a new page reviewer.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SkyGazer 512, The core goal of NPR is to patrol or review all new mainspace articles and all new mainspace redirects. Not sure why some of your redirects might not have been reviewed, but if they are more recent than July 15th (the back of the backlog), they might not have been reviewed yet. Articles tend to get reviewed from the front and back of the queue (easy-to-review articles tend to get a quick review), but redirects often are unreviewed until they hit the back of the backlog. Reviewing talk pages is unnecessary, but some users do like to review user pages (looking for things like WP:NOTWEBHOST, etc.), but this isn't part of NPR's primary function. I hope that answers your questions, and if you decide to join us in the future you would be most welcome. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation - that is definitely helpful.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Some more detective work

• New article Traction Fintech was created at 07:17 on 23 July 2018‎ by new editor Doenrtecz as his first edit.
• New article Sophie Gerber was created at 09:31 on 23 July 2018‎ by new editor Penadiuz Senfera as his first edit. Sophie Gerber just happens to be the co-founder of Traction Fintech, what a coincidence!

These two editors have certain characteristics in common and I think we can assume they are the same person. Because they appear to have been using their two accounts to mislead (neither article wikilinks to the other) it seems to me they are not only paid editors but socking as well. I am thinking of nominating both articles for AfD unless anyone has any better ideas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Both articles focus heavily on the regulatory framework in which they operate rather than their declared subject. I'd be inclined to file an SPI on the basis that the two articles are so intertwined that the two users are overlapping and creating an illusion of support (WP:ILLEGIT). It's a close call though. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

They've both been blocked indef. Natureium (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

1st August Backlog Update -- relying far too much on a few individuals.

NPP backlog, number of unreviewed articles by creation date.

Hey guys and gals, the backlog has been steadily raising over the last month, and just reached 1500 (up from 500 four weeks ago). The good news is that the oldest articles (aside from some strays) are from just over 2 weeks ago. The bad news is that this has also been steadily extending over the last few weeks.

Looking at the reviewer reports (Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers), it is clear that the backlog has only been remotely stable because of very high reviewing by one particular editor: Onel5969. This is very worrying. It isn't reasonable for us to expect such effort from one of our reviewers, and I fear that the moment he decides to take a break that the backlog will begin to spike. The more that we rely on a few high performing individuals, the more unstable and fragile the project becomes as a result (recall that the original spike in 2016 that resulted in the massive backlog occured immediately after one very high performing patroller left the project).

If everyone could please put some extra effort into reviewing articles regularly, that would be appreciated. I like this script quite a bit, as it puts the new page feed on the left side of my page at all times, giving me the incentive to do a few reviews here and there whenever I am online (It is important to use the settings npp_enabled = true;, and I also use npp_num_pages = 20;, See my common.js for how to format it). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed the steep climb. Would it be possible to compare your graphic with the number of new pages created? Is there a drop in reviews or are more pages being created? I have come across a lot that have been created after the editor has only done the minimum number of edits in draft space or sandbox and then moved them over once they became autoconfirmed. This seems to defeat the whole idea of ACTRIAL. Are the new users getting wise to this? Also there are more and more redirects in the feed. I know they are supposed to be cheap but not for us they ain't. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:, The charts I have been using to track page creation (located here) seem to have been shut off last month (no more data collection). Nettrom might have some idea where this data can be gathered elsewhere, I might have to run some queries for it. As for redirects, 1500 is the non-redirect number, but I realise that there is a workload here as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks for pinging me about this! I wanted to respond so this doesn't get lost. I am unsure what has happened with this data, but I'll look further into it on Monday. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Prolific creator of Am Football stubs

User:Bigredlance has created literally hundreds of stubs about football coches that do not meet either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG such as Sandy Gilliam. I came across these articles when I reviewed Robert Appleby (American football) a better sourced article but one that I feel fails notability requirements. Is anyone with a bit more experience in NGRIDIRON able to advise?--Dom from Paris (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject College football? Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the nod, User talk:Domdeparis. According to the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, college head coaches (even those that coached at small schools) qualify under WP:GNG. Take a look at the page Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. There is a lot of good information there, especially regarding coaches. Let me know if there is anything I can do to improve my odds of not having a deletion. Thanks!! Bigredlance (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of these articles, if not all of them, are going to be pass notability requirements once we do the research. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that articles that do not meet NGRIDIRON notability guidelines but are considered by the college football project as notable need the minimum number of in-depth sources to show they meet GNG. I am surprised that the project members do not ask to change the notability criteria to fit in with their own criteria because if there is consensus and each Afd is kept because of the systematical participation of these members it seems a bit of a waste of reviewer's time. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Having run into a similar issue in one of the first hundred patoges I reviewed I would be happy to help Domdeparis on crafting some language to modify the Gridiron portion of WP:NSPORT to reflect some sort of standard on coaches. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Early Redirects

Check out the revision history of this new article that I have reviewed: Toast to our Differences. I only started as a new pages patroller a few days ago and have already seen this situation multiple times. The article is for a music album and fans of the band starting talking about it before it was released. The user ss112, apparently to prevent the creation of a useless "future album" article, pre-emptively created a redirect to the band's page. Now a different user has bypassed the redirect and created a true album article. The problem though is that that the system thinks that ss112 created the article, and this person received the automatic messages generated by the Page Curation tool. Those messages should actually go to the second person in the history, ZeroBlaster, which I did manually while apologizing to the first person for the mysterious script-generated communications. Thanks. (Also note that this article needs a move/redirect for proper capitalization in the title, which I will handle separately.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion best thing to do is simply restore the redirect as I just did that way it is the second editor gets the alert. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I follow you... It seems that your action addresses the notability question for that particular album, but I was just using that as an example for something that also happens if a new post-redirect article has no problems. In short, automatic Page Curation messages go to whoever the system thinks created the article, which does not quite represent reality in such cases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to NPP doomsdayer520. This kind of situation is indeed common. The first thing you should know is that in this situation reverting the redirect by rollback (or associated scripts) is going to generate an alert for the person whose work is being reverted but not necessarily the article's creator. I believe the only time an article's creator is given a talk page notice through the curation tool is if it's marked for deletion or you insert comments while marking as reviewed (or use wikilove). Given this I will frequently leave my own message on a user's talkpage if they're trying to persistently create from redirect an article that isn't justified. Also since it seems like you might be reviewing from the "oldest" end of the queue you might be interested in a workflow I've developed for this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the redirect is the creator of the article in one sense, and should be notified e.g. when it is nominated for deletion (as should the person who removed the redirect). So I'm not sure you can call this a bug. Ultimately there's a limit to how complex our automated tools can be. Sometimes you have to do it manually. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for beauty pageant contestants

As it says on the tin - does anyone know whether these are codified somewhere? Concrete case is Khyati Sharma, which was prodded [2] (unsuccessfully) along these lines. Does being a BC winner constitute notability, even if it's for some strange offshoot like "Miss Eco India"? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you review this article ?

Hi, I wrote on the 20th an article about the recent Terrorist attack against cyclists in Tajikistan. It hasn't been reviewed yet, I suspect it's because it didn't appear on the top of the new articles list since I wrote it first on my personal space and then renamed it on main space. Since it's a recent news article, would you mind reviewing it ? I think there is an added value on making this type of articles accessible through Google fast enough. Thank you for your time.--Kimdime (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Older Articles Redirected & Restored

Recently came across a situation where I had a different view of NPP procedures than another reviewer and thought it best to seek other thoughts in case I've been interpreting procedures incorrectly. When I see an article restored from a redirect I've done a notability assessment and if it seems to lack notability will often restore the redirect. 1l2l3k argues that for articles which had been longstanding and then redirected and restored that restored version should be marked as reviewed as the redirect was a soft delete. This played out at Talk:Now That's What I Call Music! discography if you want to see a longer discussion or concrete example but I've encountered in other places and thus was seeking a more general sense from others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Draftifying

I wanted to draftify Sidhu Moose Wala but was unable to do so because a draft already existed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This definitely needs plenty of work (basically a complete rewrite to get rid of the promotional language, and sources that actually demonstrate notability). Charitably in draftspace, but yeah, the original declined draft is in the way. Not sure what is to be done in this case - can an admin delete the original draft? If that's not a possibility, I'd AfD it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The earlier draft, which has been declined twice, has been worked on by 3 SPA editors. They, and the editor who created the article directly into mainspace, all became active around the same time (Jan/Feb 2018). There might be a bit of socking going on. Both the draft and the article are terrible. I think if there is an existing draft, and the draft is older, than consideration must be given to the draft, especially if the two articles are similar. However, in this instance, that isn't the case. But the article in mainspace might be considered to be speedied, as per G11, since it is "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What's your rationale for draftification? Natureium (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly notable but not apparent from these sources, and stylistic fail but possibly repairable - hence might yield an article if done over - would be mine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, Elmidae, Onel5969, and Natureium: this is an odd situation (draft target being occupied). Maybe move the article to subpage of draft, with a note on actual draft? Or maybe a seperate draft with some suffix like singer. I havent seen the draft yet, but i also think the article is not ready for mainspace yet. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've come across this situation a few times. This usually happens when there is a draft that was declined by AfC, and they create a copy in mainspace anyway. If they haven't made the necessary changes and issues are great enough, you can use CSD, if not, you can have them history-merged as a copy-paste move. I don't remember what I've done in each of these cases in the past, but nothing needs to be moved to draft. NPP still functioned before draftification. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Draftyfying is rather a useful option where the article is poorly referenced and unsatisfactory but you are not sure what to do for the best. There are several references to The Times of India so he might be notable, but on the other hand, the opening paragraph is adequate so that a G11 speedy might be turned down. AfD is a possibility, but I don't usually nominate songs, albums or bands there because I know nothing on these subjects. I could tag the article but I did not like to leave it in mainspace. Hence the dilemma. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think moving it to Draft:Sidhu Moose Wala (artist) would be appropriate then? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I moved the original draft to Draft:Sidhu Moose Wala (January 2018) without leaving a redirect and then I was able to draftify the article in the usual way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Adieu

Thought I had been making a decent effort. But this last "unreviewed" by someone who I consider a valuable experienced editor makes me understand I should expend my efforts in a different direction. Had helped get it down to 500, now up to 1700. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: it's probably not a dramatic issue. In any case, thanks for your work, —PaleoNeonate – 01:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Onel5969: Thank you very much for your efforts over the last months. I can honestly say that we could not have done it without you. There is certainly a need for the rest of us to pick up quite a lot of slack at the moment, as the backlog is was raising even with your prodigious efforts, and will raise much more now unless we all pitch in a bit. Come on everyone, back to the coal face! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you'll reconsider, but I really can't blame you if you want to do something else. You've done a lot of good work here, and people are quick to find fault. Natureium (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus hoping you reconsider but understand your decision. I hope our editing paths will cross again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed and the numbers of unreviewed articles is likely to go shooting back up. We all get rebuffed on occasion, so please reconsider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you check that it was not accidental? I accidentally unreview a couple of articles per month. I did have my reviews unreviewed in a situation which I could only explain as an accidental click.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a double-check cum comments from Kudpung. However, at the volume that onel5969 is processing, the odd doubtful call is not really surprising nor, thinketh me, a big issue; the rest of us are generating those even at a fraction of that throughput. I hope they reconsider. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It was not accidental, but anyone who takes the hump for having one out of nearly forty thousand reviews criticised, certainly needs to take a break. I've even had reviews of mine be unreviewed (albeit mainly by trolls or totally inept reviewers). There is a general consensus, and certainly upheld by DGG, that patrolling at a cadence of 4 per minute cannot cover the tasks covered at WP:NPP - it even takes the COPYVIO tool up to 20 seconds to do its report. In the aftermath of the backlog drive, the quality control of reviewing continues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've had articles I reviewed unreviewed, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. I've learned not to get upset about a single mistake on my part or on anybody else's, or a single criticism, fair or unfair. No matter how slowly and carefully I might work, if I do anything other than the utterly obvious I am going to misunderstand the community consensus once in a while, and I am going to make some of the many possible kinds of error. . If we tried to work perfectly we would get nothing accomplished.

Please come back, but do other things also. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't a single reversion by this editor, who once again I will reiterate I have a great respect for all the work they do for the project. Rather this last reversion was one of several over the last few months. They have an issue with my oversight of New Articles, and I respect that. But this is not me taking a break. I promised myself over a year and a half ago to avoid negativity, and once a WP activity has more negativity for me than I feel is warranted (for there will always be some negativity), than I will no longer participate in that activity. This does not mean that I won't occasionally curate/patrol an article, but in the future it will only be in the course of my other activities... never as the focus, which it has been over the last few months. Cheers to you all. I really believe this is one of the most vital projects in WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, I think you do not AGF when you assume I have a particular issue with your reviewing. I revert a review when IMO it is off the mark and I don't even bother to look who the reviewer was. With nearly 40,000 reviews and the speed you make them therefore, it is hardly surprising that you have been reverted a couple of times. That said, a random 100 of your patrols which I controlled last night revealed nothing untoward - but the sample size is rather small. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted this because it turns out I had been guilty of some bad faith about your thinking regarding Onel's quality based on some comments I had seen like this. Despite the pride I take in my attempt to honor AGF it's a good reminder of its importance. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I also did a bit of random re-reviewing of Onel5969, among others, and also found pretty much nothing but good reviewing. I think the only thing I found was a missing no categories tag? Given the volume of reviewing from him, that's some stellar work. I'm happy to see Onel take a break though. I don't want him to burn out completely, and I don't like seeing the rest of us reviewers get too complacent with him doing all the work keeping the tide back. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Annual event

I'm apparently not able to un-patrol my own creations, so I present Annual event, as I have failed to find a suitable redirect target in mainspace. There must be coverage of the concept beyond what a Wiktionary definition will entail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

...honestly, if I encountered that thing in the wild I'd be tempted to CSD it off the bat. What's the point of mainspacing a reference-less stub about an extremely generic term? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have nominated as not meeting WP:NOTADICTIONARY if csd had been refused. If you don't have souces it seems a bit odd to create an article. If I were you I would blank it and ask for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The text would be useful at Category:Annual events which currently has none. Un-patrolling may be unavailable, but {{db-g7}} is. Cabayi (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect power~enwiki as much as anyone but he asked for it to be unpatrolled, I believe, so that it could go through the normal patrol process. As such if someone thinks it should be speedy deleted (I don't think so as only criteria which came close for me was A7 organized event and that seems like a stretch), PROD'ed, or AfD, it's probably best to do so. In my looking for sources the best I could find was a NYT food article about this topic which doesn't strike me as particularly useful [3] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I created the page as a stub because I felt there's more than enough content to justify something beyond a dictdef, but am still expecting there's a redirect target I'm missing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't understand why you created an unsourced stub article that you think should be a redirect for a page that you can't quite find yet. Wouldn't it have been better to wait until you found the target page before creating the article? I don't really understand what you are asking us to do...are you asking us to try and find the mystery target ? Are you asking us to find sources for this page? Or are you asking us to nominate it for deletion? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Elmidae. It's belongs in Wiktionary. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

^{Elmidae, screwed-up the ping. Atsme📞📧 03:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)}

NPR Coordinators

Hi everyone. I want to open up a bit of a discussion about NPR coordinators, the tasks that need doing, and the need for additional coordinators.

Coordinators generally are meant to perform the tasks outlined at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#New_Page_Review_Coordinators.

We are meant to hold elections for patroller each year, and the last election was held in March 2017, so we are overdue for one. During the last election, Kudpung wished to retire as the driving force behind NPP. Users ran for election either by nominating themselves or by accepting nominations from others. Two editors were chosen in the last election, but due to other commitments, didn't really ever take over the coordination activities of the project.

TonyBallioni stepped up to do quite a few of the coordination activities after that, and sent out most of the newsletters in 2017. Toward the latter part of last year, I also started helping out with some of the coordination activities and Tony successfully ran for RfA and has become pretty busy with other admin activities recently, and with other stuff in his life. This year, Kudpung has stepped back in to help out as there were quite a few coordinator activities that were not being completed.

I'm not really happy with the current status quo, and I am aware that Kudpung is not too keen on being a coordinator of NPP anymore. He cares deeply about the project though, so I understand why he keeps coming back to help pick up the slack. At the moment it isn't really very clear who the coordinators are, or who they are meant to be, though I'm not sure that matters so long as the main tasks get done.

I am happy to continue helping out personally in an organisational capacity, even if it is only as an 'unofficial' coordinator, but I am not an admin, and some coordinator tasks do require adminship.

I am a bit reluctant to hold an 'election' again, due to the failure of the previous one to pull forth anyone ready to organise the project (in the months following the last election, the NPR backlog spiralled out of control up to ~25,000). However, I do think we need more people to step up in this role. I wonder if we should allow nominations of others like we did last time, or just have self nominations.

Is there anyone else actually keen to help out with organising and working toward those coordinator activities? Are there any others who are already doing some of the coordinator activities in the background and I just haven't noticed? Let me know what you guys think moving forward, should we hold an election or just let things continue along as they have been? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere has done great work in expanding the number of reviewers. they are currently the de-facto coordinator for most of the tasks. I see no reason to run elections, and much prefer that those people who actually do the work are endorsed by consensus. If you do it, and nobody challenges you, you should keep doing it as long as you're still interested. People who are interested in coordinating could have just started doing most of it. We do deed a coordinator with admin user rights for is evaluating candidates at WP:PERM. If Kudpung wants to continue doing that, fine, or our old friend TonyBallioni might want to help or maybe Jbhunley who I hope is going to RfA wants to help with that if he passes. Another important aspect of the coordinator role is assuming responsibility for software development. Our relationship with the devs at the WMF is not great, and we need someone with both the requisite software development and social skills to help prioritize what gets built for us. Vexations (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I stopped editing, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere, before starting as a Coordinator. By the time I got back others had things well in hand and had probably done things better than I could have. If, and it's a pretty big if, I pass my RfA I will be more than happy to dig in at PERM or wherever else is needed and regardless I'll be doing normal NPP stuff. Recently my Wikipedia time has been spent elsewhere since things have looked well in hand here and I figured parachuting into a well managed environment after completely dropping the ball would be well, kind of being a jerk.

I would definitly support Insertcleverphrasehere as project coordinator. Jbh ^Talk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The election served a purpose in bringing more attention to the behind-the-scenes needs of NPP and taking some of the weight off of Kudpung's shoulders (eventually). But as you say, it didn't actually work. Elections and appointed roles don't work very well on this project in general, I think, with very few notable exceptions.

You and Tony have been the de facto coordinators and I think you should feel free to call yourself that, if you want. But perhaps a more sustainable way forward would be to make these coordination tasks a collective responsibility. Things like putting together newsletters and organising backlog drives can and should be done by any reviewer who feels inclined. We should add a section to the reviewer guidelines to that effect.

As for the "oversight"-type jobs that need admin permissions, I do them sporadically and I think they are too work much to put on one or two people individually. Ideally we should have a decent size pool of "patroller-admins" to exercise quality control. Maybe we could draft some guidelines on what that job entails, and then post on WP:AN saying we need extra hands. And of course we should also be on the look out for experienced patrollers who could request the tools (hint hint). – Joe (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think people stepping up organically to help out may work better than electing coordinators. Electing people by a formal process seems unnecessarily rigid, and would be more useful if we had too many people trying to steer the ship, but we seem to be in the opposite boat. Let people pick up tasks as their interest dictates. Interests wax and wane and someone may put a lot of effort into NPP and then get bored for a while. Natureium (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it unfair to ask any one person (or maybe two or three people) to do the Coordinator's job. The fact that Kudpung did it all for so long in that regard is absolutely amazing and the project is a better place for it, but doesn't seem like a sustainable replicable model. I do think that having some sort of spokesperson to WMF who can legitimately say that they are speaking for NPP would be a reason to have some sort of election. I do think having some person who can be seen as a friendly nudge to NPP reviewers when they go wrong and guide discussions on things like the idea of revoking the permission from those who aren't using it so we can get a sense of how many real reviewers we have is also useful and where having an elected coordinator is also helpful. As to the other stuff Insertcleverphrasehere has shown that you can be an effective coordinator without a formal office. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've stepped back from a lot of the backend stuff of NPP largely because my real life has gotten significantly busier over the last 6 months or so (you'll notice my edit count for this month is the lowest in years, and most of that is script assisted.) Like Joe Roe, who does an excellent job helping out on the tools end, I still have this page watchlisted, and help out at PERM, but unfortunately if there was an election, I would not be standing again and at most would take on an emeritus role like Kudpung has.
  My largest focus on Wikipedia when it comes to devoting time is still with paid editing. There is a large overlap with NPP there, but there is also a flood of sockfarms at WP:COIN and WP:SPI that need dealing with, and since my RfA I've been able to deal with them more effectively there and using other methods rather than just looking directly in the new pages feed. I have no opinion either way as to if we should have a formal coordinator election: if people want one, I'd be happy to do the "closing" of it since I won't be running, but otherwise, doing it informally could also work. It is all up to us as a project. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Insert, TB, and UNK have done an awesome job helping this project. If you want more help then nom me for admin some time in the next 6 months. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention Usernamekiran above, but he has also been very helpful, especially when it comes to inviting more users to the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't he send out a few of the Newsleters? ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Helped in drafting some of them if I remember correctly. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words fellas. Well, I didnt exactly drafted, but I did give few suggestions which were accepted. I once even (unsuccessfully) suggested a change in {{New Page Reviewer granted}}; a long time after that Joe Roe made a similar change. But I havent done much except that. I keep on encouraging the reviewers time to time (here or individually), and often try to recruit new reviewers and keep insisting that we should get more editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure how many co-ordinators we can officially have; but I think "two" is the number. Because of some odd turns of events after last election; Kudpung, and Tony took the charge, and later ICPH joined them. I took a look at the tasks expected to be performed by the co-ordinators, and to my surprise I already a lot of these things. Like watching new reviewers for a while, monitoring not just NPPR perm, but the entire perm (on few occasions I even annoyed Kudpung and Beeblebrox lol). I am willing to increase my activity on that task list. I dont mind if I am an official co-ordinator or not. Even though Tony and Kudpung want to retire, I hope they will provide their guidance/suggestions if contacted. I mean, the latter has been doing this job for more that 7 years; he has every right to take break and he definitely has more experience and knowledge than anybody else. I dont know if I should run the election or not, but I dont mind running either. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is there any specific number of official coordinators? There are no rules for this. We should have as many people helping with the coordination of NPP tasks as are necessary and are willing to take on the work. Unless there are problems with people attempting to do coordination work that they aren't qualified for/are messing up, there's no reason to have rigid roles. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, wherever there management/organisation/bureaucracy, more heads means more (unnecessary) discussions, different opinions, and so on. If there are fewer people, even if the strategy/plan are "not so good", they are quick; and they can be improvised with time/new situations. A quick "not so good strategy" is better than nothing. I think a similar issue was discussed in film captain america civil war, between black panther and his father. Maybe the guys here thought the same. And loosely speaking, we had a few guys doing as co-ordinatir tasks like Kudpung, Tony, Joe, ICPH, Primefac among few others (Primefac is like liaison between us and AfC, and tech stuff). As long as particular editors handle particular tasks from that list, i dont think we even need formal co-ordinators. These are my personal opinions though. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Outside of urgent situations, I don't think quick decisions are better than good decisions. There is WP:NODEADLINE and few urgent situations within NPP. If there are, people can still act quickly without formal decisions as long as people have earned trust. Natureium (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Key tasks (volunteers welcome)

It seems like most people are happy with forgoing any election in favour of a more organic approach. For this to be successful, I think it will be advantageous to identify the key NPR management activities and ask for volunteers to watch over some of these key aspects. Below is the list of key activities from the coordinator task list, and I have added some notes, highlighting where additional help would be desirable. Please put your name down to help in any capacity you feel comfortable, and if this method is successful, I can periodically ask for volunteers for coordinator tasks in this way to help spread the management workload. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Of the primary 'coordinator' tasks (management of NPR):

1. Watch over all the pages connected with New Page Patrolling and reviewing (see page-top nav bar)

   I think that together this one is largely handled. These pages are watchlisted by a large number of experienced patrollers, and questions are answered quickly. However, if you haven't already, consider running through the nav bar and watchlist all the various talk pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   yes, i have been doing this since a long time. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

2. Monitor the page at Page Curation, to provide help with reporting bugs to Phab. Liaise with devs and/or WMF staff.

   I don't have a lot of experience reporting bugs to Phab, but there are some others that clearly watchlist this page that do. Liaising with WMF staff is something that Kudpung has generally done a lot of, and it is important that one or more of us take over this task. It is important that NPR keeps in contact with the WMF and lets them know how we are doing and where we might use their help from time to time, so I'll be working on building a relationship with them moving forward. Anyone who is already in contact with some of the people over at the WMF, please comment and put your name down here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   I have been watching that page too, but never repoerted a bug yet lol. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

3. Monitor the page at Page Curation/Suggested improvements

   Unfortunately this page is largely ineffectual at driving improvements to the PC toolset, and generally only sees action where there is a bug with the software (and even then, rarely). We need to go through this page and collect a list of key points where there is general consensus for change/improvement, create a summary list and then discuss it. This should be moving toward creating a listing for the annual wishlist (due Nov 2018). I'd be happy if someone else is keen to spearhead this one, so please volunteer by putting your name down here if you are interested. Otherwise I'll put together a list in the coming months. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

   I monitor that too, and have commented like for two or three times. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

4. Monitor (but do not clerk) the page at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer to ensure that the newly created reviewers have been notified, and that the Newsletter mailing list is maintained (sometimes the automated script is not used to add new names, sometimes blocked users need to be removed).

   I'm keeping an eye on this at the moment, and I think there are quite a few others as well. Generally only admins should comment at PERM, and only where necessary. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   I keep an eye at entire perm, since long before i became NPR. Unlike most of the editors, I find perm funny for some reason. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

5. Answer questions at any of the talk pages.

   See #1. Anyone can help with this one, and I encourage informed patrollers to watchlist the talk pages in the top Nav Bar. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   i do it, and a lot of experienced users do it too. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

6. Provide help to new patrollers, monitor and coordinate the NPP School (currently inactive), or co-opt additional users to serve this task

   I think we need to do more work here. The school has been largely inactive for quite a while, and perhaps needs some additional leadership. Ideally the school should be advertised to editors that are pretty new, but have some promising attributes and might make good patrollers with a bit of training. A more developed syllabus, combined with some directed advertisement (invites to join the school), would be advantageous. Now that NPR can be given out with a probationary time period, I am envisioning a system where new-ish editors interested in NPR might apply to join the school and we could give them NPR user-right temporarily for the purpose of NPR training in the school (to be used at the direction of their trainer on specific pages only). Creation of a more directed syllabus might be advantageous here, to help trainers with a pool of example 'practice' articles ready to be used for grading. Anyone interested in becoming headmaster for the school, put your name down here and I'll help with getting the word out. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   I monitor new reviewers. There are a few more who do that. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

7. Organise backlog drives where necessary, including monitoring of review quality and issuing awards.

   I'll continue working in this area, though I could use some help in the area of 'reviewing the reviewers'. It is important that we make sure to identify any substandard reviewing, but also that we avoid accusations or shaming. Politely ask reviewers about questionable calls, or you can always drop me an email if you want to confidentially bring attention to something that looks like misconduct. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   taken care of by ICPH, but I can definitely help with this except issuing awards. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

8. Sending out barnstars and other appreciation to active reviewers.

   I've been doing a bit of this, and it is an important motivational tool to keep reviewers going. This needs to be combined with 'reviewing the reviewers' to ensure that we aren't just sending out awards to editors for quantity, but rather awarding them for quality reviewing. Anyone interested in helping out here, put your name down here (experienced patrollers only). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   already taken care of by ICPH. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

9. Warn patrollers that they are getting things wrong.

   This step comes after 7-8, but should come from someone experienced. Be careful with 'warnings', and they should be phrased as queries unless blatantly obvious. Be polite, even if someone missed something obvious like a clear copyvio. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

   can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

10. Report issues to ANI and/or report them directly to admins.

    Next step after #9, only after discussion with the editor in question has failed to respond to directed queries. Bringing the issue up here is also an option (nobody likes a trip to ANI). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

11. Act as editorial board for a quarterly (or any other period) newsletter or co-opt additional users to serve this task.

    Some editors above have suggested that we should do this collaboratively, with anyone who wants to chipping in, but this isn't necessarily the best idea. I don't want to see edit warring on the newsletter draft (currently located here). Feel free to correct typos or formatting errors, but substantial additions/removals/changes should instead be suggested at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination#Newsletter_suggestions. I'll act as editor for now, along with other emeritus coordinators, and I am open to others becoming editors for the newsletter in the future. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

12. Maintain stats and/or coordinate with those who know how to quarry for them. ICPH's quarry profile has a number of useful NPR stats queries.

    I've got this one handled for now, but if anyone has any suggestions for additional stats that we should be keeping an eye on, please let me know. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

13. Keep an eye on the development of ORES.

    Someone or multiple people with strong technical expertise should take this one on. Any takers? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    no can do. (I can not do this one.) —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

14. Exchange feedback with other language Wikipedias.

    I wonder if we could put together a list of project pages on other wikis for similar NPP projects...? Anyone interested in this task, please put your name down here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    can do. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

15. Attend meetups and Wikimania whenever possible, to discuss the project.

    Kudpung did a lot of this sort of work. I'm not sure about whether I will be able to attend Wikimainia 2019 or not (Stockholm, Sweden, sometime in mid 2019). I will be in Europe, so I might be able to. Any NPRs intending to attend, please let us know. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    i cant be sure either. After an year, I will be Au. Lets how things roll out. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

16. Be prepared to conduct and participate on Skype conferences on the topic.

    Anybody wants to have a face to face or voice chat, just drop me a message or an email. Anyone else keen on having a regular-ish meetup/chat, put your name down here and we might organise something on Skype or Discord. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

    I am not exactly photogrnic, but meh. I am ready to do this too. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for this excellent review of the Coordinator tasks which I listed a long while ago. I'll just make some comments and try to keep it as brief as possible:

1. I'm not sure that the active reviewers, at least the ones who regularly post here, have ever explored all the pages in the nav bar associated with NPP/NPR. They need tomake themselves familiar with it all.

2. Liaising with the WMF is essential but very strenuous. Although NPP is our only firewall against unwanted content, I consider it to be absolute top priority. The current WMF 'management' does not.

3. See #2 above. The list at Page Curation/Suggested improvements should be regarded as a whole and not as individual items. It's been nearly 3 years since we have been appealing for these fixes. In order to ignore our requests, the WMF have at times told us that it's an issue for the 'Wish list' and that it's not. The wishlist is strictly for convenience gadgets - it needs to be made very clear to the WMF that NPR is an indispensable core function and not for their yearly letter to Santa.

6. I created this. It has never been used. There are several Wikipedia schools based on the same model. None of them perform particularly well. It should probably be assumed that editors applying for he reviewer user group should be sufficiently clued up already. Like adminship, it's not really something that can be learned on the job. The knowledge comes with previous in-depth editing experience. The entry thresholds are low, but mainly to keep out new and totally inexperienced users. It's not an automatic pass mark for the tools.

11. Good points. There were some issues with the recent NL being edited by persons who don't even patrol new pages.

15. The WMF takes it for granted that people interested in specific areas will make the trip to Wikimania. Because they enjoy the privilege of business travel, the WMF staff do not appreciate that the world is a big place and that not all volunteers can afford the cost (or the time) of attending. Besides which, Wikimania is too big and too general, and everyone is too busy listening to the WMF congratulating themselves on their work, to discuss these issues. I have been making suggestions for a dedicated meeting somewhere for the Wikipedians of all language projects who are actively concerned with the quality control / COI / paid editing of new pages. I will continue to ply for this and for sponsorship for the attendees. I believe James is working on this too.

16. I prefer to keep things as open as possible, while Skype, Hangouts, or Wire are fine if people link up for a multi-way video chat.

Coordinators: I originally suggested two because it was based for no other reason other than on my own workload managing NPP/NPR. If sufficient qualities/skills can be found in the right people, there is no reason why coords per se would be needed. Recognising those skills and delegating the various tasks to the right people is however, essential and they need to build a reliable core team. This is especially important when crafting RfC proposals and/or when dealing with the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Russian "cities"

Nikolai_Kurbatov (talk · contribs) has created a lot of articles that claim to be about Russian cities. I'm not convinced that some, such as 53rd km, actually are cities. More likely they are just railway crossings. Should we AFD the whole lot, or PROD them, or what? There have been several comments on his talk page, he replied to the most recent with I don't know, sorry. And i can't find answer in Internet... (regarding 147 km). power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw these too and attempted to prod 4th Uchastok since it claimed 0 people. PROD was removed by Necrothesp who I'm pinging as they might have expertise useful for us. I was reluctant to really dive into the Russian sources but I agree that having looked at quite a few I share skepticism that all of them should have articles given WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at some of them too, and couldn't quite figure out what was going on with them. It doesn't appear to be a hoax; 147 km appears on a map for example, so it might meet WP:GEOLAND. If the name indicates a distance from/to another place, it looks like that might be the distance to Khabarovsk. Vexations (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The corresponding Russian article for 4th Uchastock, for example, is much more substantial. It's a pity the creating editor appears to have been more bothered about quantity of articles than quality. PamD 10:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess what they are doing is to use the results of the 2010 population census they have (which is clearly a reliable source) to create these stubs alphabetically (now working with Aba). (Note that these localities are not cities, we have already articles about all Russian cities, but in the last samples I have seen they call them villages. This is not what I would call a quality content creation, OTOH they are probably all notable, and the stubs are sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Question....

The following stubs don't appear to meet WP:N, but I'm not sure if they qualify as CSD or if they possibly have some historical significance? I realize how difficult it is to get living architects included but would death make a difference? Would appreciate your input: Halldóra Briem, Rögnvaldur Ólafsson, Alfred Råvad, and Einar Sveinsson ?? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think three of these four do meet WP:GNG. Einar Sveinsson makes a good case and is well referenced. Rögnvaldur Ólafsson and Halldóra Briem make reasonable claims for importance (first Icelandic architect, first Icelandic woman architect) and are sourced to the page of the Icelandic Architectural Association, which would seem authoritative. - Alfred Råvad seems weakly sourced and if a search doesn't turn up anything, I'd AfD it (does not satisfy any CSD criteria, I'd say). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

First [gender] [nationality] [profession] biographies have a credible claim of significance that would preclude a CSD. However most such articles have a bit more context than a bare statement of that fact. Einar Sveinsson has already been tagged CSD once - a second CSD isn't an option (unless you find it's a copyright violation). Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? "Joe Bloggs a British house painter" is enough to avoid A7? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis, that's not what I wrote. "Joe Bloggs was the first British house painter" would be enough to avoid A7. Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I thought you meant "first" as in "first off" or "firstly" and didn't follow up with "second" sorry. And of course I agree with you. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The articles meet notability. They just need to someone to add the large number of available RS to them. As for Alfred Råvad (mentioned above), his Danish Wikipedia page is fairly substantive and extensively sourced, which should lessen some of the doubts as to his notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I added some additional sourcing. Note though that this is not really my jam on Wikipedia and my hope was that topic experts would fill in the gaps. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)