|
"Easily confused words" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Easily confused words and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Easily confused words until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Blanking draft?
Hey, Godsy! Why do we need to blank this? valereee (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I was going to move it to User:Kaf121/Madbhi, but noticed your statement that you deleted it. So, I simply blanked it. As long as the templates {{draft topics}} and {{afc topics}} are removed, so that the page does not populate Category:Draft topics used in wrong namespace and Category:AfC topic used in wrong namespace respectively, I have no major qualm with the draft remaining unblanked at its present location (though the main talk page of a user is not a good place for a userspace draft). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm probably being stupid...why shouldn't the user talk work to post that? I have no objection to it being moved to that redlink. I deleted an earlier version due to copyvio, then brought this one in so this very new user would be able to access their previous work without the copyvio. Why would we have any objection at all to that? What am I missing? valereee (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee: No worries. Well, let's imagine that the draft remains on their talk page. The user receives communications, maybe even important, from a couple more users. They then decide to submit the draft to afc. The draft will likely be moved to draftspace. That is problematic because now the history of their talk page (something that should be preserved) is mixed with the draft. On the other hand, the draft may be quickly declined where it is at. Either way, the page will now bear an afc template (e.g. {{AfC submission/draft}}) thereby making it eventually eligible for G13. Unless the deleting administrator is particularly savvy and simply blanks the draft (leaving the other contents and history intact), the same issue of losing what should rightly remain occurs. Similar problems would arise if the page is ever brought to miscellany for deletion. Thus – placing the draft content on a main user talk page, as opposed to a subpage of userspace, presents many potential issues for the future. I hope that helps clarify a bit. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm probably being stupid...why shouldn't the user talk work to post that? I have no objection to it being moved to that redlink. I deleted an earlier version due to copyvio, then brought this one in so this very new user would be able to access their previous work without the copyvio. Why would we have any objection at all to that? What am I missing? valereee (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
"George Traut Austin" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect George Traut Austin and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#George Traut Austin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:RFDC" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:RFDC and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Wikipedia:RFDC until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Godsy,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 737 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1031 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Godsy,
- Backlog status
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
- Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
- TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
- Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}
, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
>NPP backlog: 8770 as of 16:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
- Notes
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |