Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Wondering why Special:Newpages is yellow all of a sudden? See here for full details about this cool new feature.

Contents

[edit] How do you sign up?

how do you sign up for the new pages patrol User: Physik

Hi, sorry, but since your comment wasn't in a section, I put it in one for you. Thanks! --HAL2008 05:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Stubs and short non-stubs

I've come here at the suggestion of another editor on the WikiProject Cricket Talk page (section heading: "I can't win!"). The discussion there was provoked by the fact that a short biographical article I wrote about a cricketer, William Adshead, had a stub tag added to it just a few minutes after I submitted it. There is a fair consensus in the WikiProject that articles such as Adshead's are not actually stubs despite their brevity: there are many cricketers about whom not that much is known, yet who pass the standards for notability (which in the case of cricketers means having played at first-class or List A level). Adshead is one of those, and since all the available significant details are already covered in his article, it shouldn't really be classed as a stub even though it's not all that long. Loganberry (Talk) 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteering

I'm volunterringmy efforts, let me know if I should report that on a different page :) Mathiastck 10:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log."

Does anyone actually do this? I could cite dozens of examples of pages that got littered with tags (especially speedy tags) within minutes of creation. Morgan Wick 17:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do it (I added it to the page). The idea is it can be bitish to speedy a page created in good faith within one or two minutes of creation. Vandalism and obvious garbage I don't wait for.--Chaser - T 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else? Morgan Wick 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing that, but I just started doing new page patrol a few days ago, qualifying me as a newbie.--Evil1987 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Speedy Deletion Bot

Hi I created this bot to make reports here of users removing speedy tag on articles they created, I'm just waiting on approval for a trial run. --Chris g 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process

There is discussion about adding a ten day delay into the A7 CSD process, since that would affect this wiki project significantly, I am posting a link to the discussion to obtain wider input from the community. --Fredrick day 14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Proposal to add 10 day delay into A7 CSD process

[edit] [WikiEN-l] Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia

From the mailing list:

“ In the time since late 2005 the English Wikipedia community has grown substantially. The nearly exponential growth rate in articles we

previously experienced has stopped. Even if disabling anon page creation was beneficial then, there is no current evidence suggesting that the change continues to be beneficial. As such, barring complications, anonymous page creation will be re-enabled on English Wikipedia on Friday November 9th.

After a one month period, on December 9th, we will re-evaluate this decision using previously established methods (average article lifespan, rate of deletion, manual quality classification, random samplings of newly created articles, and most importantly, community discussion). If there is evidence of harm, anonymous page creation will be disabled to collect more data and provide time for discussion. If there is no significant evidence of harm, the issue will be evaluated again after six months. Further milestones and actions may be proposed at that time.

 ”

Original post: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html . Better optimize those speedy deletion scripts, we're going to need them a lot more.

Discussion to WP:VPP#Anonymous page creation will be reenabled on English Wikipedia please. MER-C 09:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrolling enabled

New pages patrolling seems to have been enabled. So now you can mark a page as patrolled, making it easier for new page patrollers to coordinate patrolling. Thue | talk 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be reflected in the text of this page as well. huji—TALK 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learning to rate new articles

I've been a vandal patroller for a long time. Now I think I'll help out with New pages patrol - but it's a lot harder. I've read WP:CSD, etc. but many articles are judgment calls and judgment is something that takes time to develop. What I'd like to do is list some pages that I patrolled and ask the experts why they rated {{db-bio}}, {{notability}}, or a pass. Here's the first one: Ralph Pulitzer. At the very least it should get an {{unreferenced}}, but does it deserve db-bio or a notability tag or any other tags? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Pulitzer (1879-1939) son of newspaper magnate, etc. makes it very likely there is reliable sources material for the article. No A7. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the second: Pearl Slaghoople, a fictional character from Fred Flintstone. I would have given it a CSD-A7 but another new pages patroller apparently accepted it (it wasn't marked yellow). Wikipedia has a LOT of articles about TV shows - are ALL of them notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would CSD-A7 Pearl Slaghoople. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is William Donner Roosevelt notable?

The speedy delete question is not notable (WP:N), the speedy delete question is whether the article lists reasonable assertion of "importance/significance." William Donner Roosevelt is not a speedy delete candidate. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I just go ahead and mark things for CSD knowing that someone else will review in case I am wrong? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. No other way to learn. I usually pick up the candidates on this page: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. -- Jreferee t/c 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You should be trying to improve the encyclopedia. Sometimes that means deleting stuff, but usually it means finding references (which won't always be found on the first Google page) and adding information. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filtering Special:Newpages

I've set up an RSS feed to filter only video-game related articles from the new pages feed. Maybe other WikiProject want to do the same. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New articles RSS feed. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 22:19

[edit] India is one of the worst culprits for spamming the English Wikipedia

A high number of adverts, copyright infringements and incoherent pages are obviously related to India. It can be understood given the country's massive population and the fact that the people with Internet access are very likely to understand English, but on the whole they definitely seem less likely to understand Wikipedia's purpose than those in places such as Europe or the USA - it seems to be a sad fact. This is certainly not to say that no spam comes from Europe or the USA - very far from it - but India is probably the country that generates the greatest number of these types of pages when I'm looking over new pages patrol. Thoughts?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that the kind of spammish new pages we get ebbs and flows with the time of day, who happens to be actively creating pages, etc. But assuming the section title is true, so what? What difference does it make except that perhaps some of our Indian editors are better placed to judge whether something qualifies as A7 or should go through another process?--chaser - t 10:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay that touches on New pages patrol

Newpage patrollers may be interested in the essay Write the Article First, which touches on NPP. Comments/changes/additions are of course welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View oldest non-patrolled?

By experimenting with the offset parameter in the url I discovered that there are more than 14,000 pages that have not been patrolled - and who knows how many older than one month. Could we get an "oldest" button to make it easier to patrol old articles before they disappear unpatrolled from the list of new pages? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to VPR. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help for the Spanish wiki

Hello fellows from the English wikipedia, I work hard patroling new pages in the Spanish wikipedia and have 2 questions for you. Since, your community is much bigger than ours, maybe you came up with tools that could help us, you are probably top hi-tech here. I a looking for a way to filter the authors of new pages. I do rely on a lot of authors and don't really need to double check their new pages. It would be great to filter the new pages with the authors than I don't include in a trusted authors page. The another thing I was wondering is if you have discovered a way to find out which wikipedia user (if any) is behind an IP address. You can also use me as link to the Spanish wikipedia in the case that you need anything and don't know whom to talk. If possible, please drop me an answer HERE as well. Thanks a lot in advance, all the best, --Little by little (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bite the newbies and get rewarded with an adminship

Over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, new page patrols are being discussed. I keep coming across things like the following. The article titled Bochica was tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's "patent nonsense", then deleted on the grounds that there's not enough context to identify the subject. That is irresponsible newbie-biting. That is willful stupidity. I had never heard of the topic, but found hits on Wikipedia and Google right away. Apparently the two users who did this didn't bother. That's how new pages are getting patrolled. I restored the page.

Why must new page patrolling be done only by people who are idiots because they choose to be idiots? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I gently agree with some of your comments - some people seem to be a bit over-zealous when patrolling new pages or new usernames. There should be some guidelines about deleting pages or reporting new users - at least use the (Welcome) template first unless the new user is making clearly bad-faith contributions. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This thread is more active atWT:RFA. Please go there so as to avoid forking the discussion. Thanks!--chaser - t 18:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll comment here, because my comments are directed at people doing new page patrol and not people going for adminship. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of odd tagging. The tag says "This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material", thus the article is inappropriately tagged, and the tagger did not bother to contact the articles author. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Commenting here because I am making a suggestion for this project page, rather than commenting on practice or behaviour. I see one of the articles mentioned as inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion at WT:RFA was the article entitled Bochica, which was actually listed as a missing encyclopaedia article ( presumably because the EB has an article on the subject). Would it be useful to have a few more hints on the project page including something like: "Even if the article appears to be nonsense, or notability is not asserted, if there is any doubt consider checking "What links here" to see if the article has been requested? If so, make a special effort to find references or otherwise improve the article in order to avoid the article being inappropriately tagged. --Boson (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll try to keep that in mind even if it doesn't get to the project page. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional numbers, policies, etc.

I agree with Boson, and I proposed that policy a few months ago and got shot down. The occasion was the idiotic proposed speedy deletion of the venerable article MathWorld as allegedly "blatant advertising". It was created when Wikipedia was unknown and the MathWorld website was universally known and respected, so the idea that it was intended as advertising is laughable, and there was no link to the company allegedly being advertised. Nearly 1500 pages linked to it! Most of those links were added by respectable professionals with no interest in advertising MathWorld, but acutely aware (as who is not?) of its renown. So I proposed a policy at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: CHECK FOR LINKS TO THE ARTICLE. If there are more than 1000 of them, as in that case, check out the situation before speedily deleting.

I keep seeing good article tagged for speedy deletion thoughtlessly. So I raised this issue. As a result, I found out that there is such a thing as "new page patrols", and that this present page with policies on it exist. I have been told repeatedly that 90% or 95% of pages marked for speedy deletions really should be speedily deleted. I think those numbers are just fiction. They're simply made up. Maybe someone counts the cases where someone complains and is proved right. How do we know there aren't MANY good article speedily deleted whose newbie authors then go away disenchanted with Wikipedia and are never heard from again?

The answer would have to be some kind of systematic patrolling of the patrols. I don't know how best to do that efficiently. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some speedy deletion is wrong, or borderline. THere are a few occasions when PRODding would have been better. Good luck trying to get some numbers on it though. Dan Beale-Cocks 08:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh ... y'know, I've been commenting for a while now on AfD my wonderment at some of these lightning AfD nominations, saying "What, is there a prize for being the one who gets the most articles deleted in three minutes or less?" Now I find out that this is true. For my money, for anything less than a blatant CSD candidate, there's no way any editor alive can take the time to assess the notability and verifiability less than ninety seconds after creation, and I will aggressively Oppose any RfA candidate who engages in this practice. Heck, I would be pleased as punch if a new rule was put in forbidding filing an AfD on anything short of a WP:BLP violation within 72 hours of an article's creation. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not treating WP:NPP as a bloody competitive video game, and it would be a good thing if more experienced admins clued in the more rabid bombardiers.  RGTraynor  17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Watching" this page

Is there a way to "watch" the new pages page, or a simple way to click there, other than manually typing in the address, or clicking help and searching for new page patrolling? Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking about Special:NewPages? No, you can't watch it, but there are two easy ways to get to it. On the left side of just about every page, under the Search box, you can click Special pages, then click New pages. Or you can use your browser to make a bookmark to the NewPages page. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I usually use the link in the NPP userbox on my user page as a quick link to Special:Newpages. (Side note: I also created a similar box of my own with a link to the deletion log, as I frequently troll that page looking for blue links.) --Finngall talk 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To encourage not biting newbies...

Could people please make sure to use the {{welcome}} and {{firstarticle}} templates instead of the usual speedy warnings when creating user-talk pages? I tend to look through WP:LSD for badly-tagged speedies when I've got the time, and I've noticed that few of the users who've created these pages have been welcomed. Their talk pages are usually just a single {{nn-warn}} or {{spam-warn}} or something like that. The first interaction these users are having is with the WP:NPP and it doesn't appear that they're being notified about the speedies courteously. WP:NPP#Being nice already suggests welcoming new users, but I'd suggest also adding that, when creating a user talk page with a warning template, the {{firstarticle}} template should be used. Thanks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Some editors sign up with what appears to be a role account, and then either create articles about their organisation, or add links to their website to relevant articles. They're clearly violating several important WP policies, and that needs to stop. But huge numbers of potentially useful editors are being driven away (and blocked) when a quick explanation of COI and role account policy could turn them into useful editors. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
People don't seem to be giving any time either, as suggested by the project page, as many articles are being csd'd 1 minute after creation. xenocidic (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template to help new page patrollers

A lot of people are tagging new pages with CSD:A7 minutes after they are created. I am very lazy and was hoping there was a template to add to these peoples talk pages to suggest they patrol from the bottom up and not bite the newbies. Azazyel (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, per my comment above. xenocidic (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting House

There have been three speedy delete tags for spam placed on the article Reporting House today, two by me and a third by another editor.[1] All three have been removed by the writer of the piece. (I also removed two fake references on the page, which have so far remained deleted). Is there anyone this should be reported to? --seahamlass 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hide patrolled pages?

Is it just me that no longer has this option? I still have the hide bots option on Special:newpages. Paulbrock (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

seems to have fixed itself! Paulbrock (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spotting page recereations

I've noticed some pages have tags on their initial creation e.g. Dan Lucas, which has a tag dating from 6 months before creation. Now this to me says a recreated page, but I can't find it under Special:Log under Dan Lucas or Dan lucas. Should I be looking somewhere else to see if it's been deleted in the past, or am I missing something? Paulbrock (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag templates for deletion warnings

Hello, fellow editors ...

In an effort to deal with the problem of proposed deletions and speedy deletions that occur Too Quickly, I have created a Protocol to minimize friction from proposed deletions and speedy deletions to flag dubious articles and possibly improve them, or else delete them according to the established policies.

As an example, I have flagged Dan Lucas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) using the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol ... I have placed messages on both the article's and the author's talk pages, and will check it again next week.

I invite any comments or feedback from you about these templates and the protocols, which are designed to be used as "stencils" or "templates" in a second browser tab for easy copy&paste while editing ... so far, the biggest complaint has been, "It's too complicated," to which my reply has been, "Well, then just forget you ever saw it, and Move On." :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, though a bit tricky to get my head round on first glance. So as I see it - there would now be an explanation of prod/speedy on the article's talk page and notify the user before moving onto speedy? Would you want to add Template:Flag-editor, then Template:prodwarning/Template:adw as well? And presumably this would only be used when you weren't sure about deletion, or would it be used all the time?
Speedy criteria are supposed to be applied on sight as I understand it, the point is the article is unsalvageable. Prods are different but at least there's 5 days of recovery time available. The easiest way to not bite the newbies is to patrol pages from the START of the list not the pages that are only 2 minutes old and under construction. Paulbrock (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea is to flag it (with Template:Flag-editor and Template:Flag-article), wait a few days, and then see how it looks ... if you decide then to PROD or CSD, then you would also place a Template:prodwarning/Template:adw as a courtesy ... also, if a PROD is contested, it should be documented with a Template:Oldprodfull so that it won't be PRODed again.
If it's a blatantly obvious "Kill it before it grows" (unsalvageable) then the courtesy message after the tagging is sufficient, and you don't need the protocol ... it's not for every article, just the ones that might be WP:COI, WP:SPAM, or similar unsubstantiated self-promotion.
See the talk page for Daryn Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for an example of an article that was improved by flagging it ... so it's only for the "potentially salvageable." —72.75.78.69 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to take a look at {{Hasty}}, which deals with hasty tagging after the fact. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thnx! Never knew it was there ... I'll try to work it into the most appropriate place(s). —72.75.78.69 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's that template?

Help!! ... What is the name of the template that says, "This article was deleted by CSD or PROD, but it has been restored."?? ... I saw it on some article, and I want to add its usage to the WP:FLAG-PROTOCOLs ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] patrol whitelist bot

Hi, I have been running a bot of Wikisource that automatically marks new pages as patrolled if they meet certain criteria. It has been suggested to me that I run the bot on enWP as well, so I have initiated a request. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JVbot 2. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag templates redux

Hello again ...

I have modified Template:Flag-article and Template:Flag-editor so that (a) failure to "subst:" generates an error, (b) offering to assist in the message is optional, and (c) they populate Category:Flagged articles and Category:Flagged editors ... any feedback?

Happy Editing! — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)