Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination
| Tutorial | Discussion | New page feed | Reviewers | Curation tool Suggestions | Coordination |
- Articles
- 14465 ↑195
- Oldest article
- 4 years old
- Redirects
- 830
- Oldest redirect
- 15 years old
- Article reviews
- 1826
- Redirect reviews
- 5940
-
There is a very large articles backlog -
The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑615 since last week)
 | This page is for discussing matters concerning coordination. For other discussions and help reviewing pages, please see: Reviewer talk |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New pages patrol/Coordination page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Recognition for consistent reviewing
[edit]Maybe it would be healthier to have something that focuses on building more reviewers that are active on an ongoing basis. For example, longer term (over 1 year) there are only 7 reviewers that average at least 2 articles per day and only 19 that average at least one per day. Maybe add an database listing (and eventually awards) of who has gone the most months with reviewing at least 20 articles in each month. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. We can do this in addition to a backlog drive. Recognition coordinator @Dr vulpes, would you be interested in exploring this idea further (i.e. setting up a page somewhere, a quarry query) and then executing it (by announcing it and giving out barnstars)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Just to emphasize I think that a visible updated listing is an important part of it. And maybe the 20 should be thirty, and maybe "30 day" periods would be easier to program than months. But I think that looking at ~1 month (or 2 or 3 month) periods is the right time frame. Nothing shorter than a month because even active folks might want to take a 2 or 3 week break or at least know that they can do that.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I noticed that Dr vulpes hasn't been the most active recently, so if need be, I can take over for any award distributions that need to be done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think recognizing those who've done consistent reviewing over a period of time is a fantastic idea. I hope it's one that can be made to happen (realizing it's easy for me to say when I'm not doing the work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824, are you able to work your magic and whip up a quarry query for this? I really like this idea and, if nobody else is interested in implementing it, I'd like to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- To solidify an idea/proposal it would be to: Add a database listing of those who have who has gone the most 30 day periods with reviewing at least 30 articles in each 30 day period. And later on add awards based on that. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Check this. Hopefully I have it right.
- It is easier to do this on a monthly basis (instead of 30-day periods). Also, I've only counted for this year, and only upto November. Minor changes are needed to add the data for December (when the month is over). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Cool. I picked 30 days because I thought it was easier. But is that figure for number of months in the streak? if so, that first one says 53 years. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I replied to you by mistake (I meant to reply to Josh's message). The query that I linked to does not count the number of consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews. It instead shows (for the period Jan 2023 - Nov 2023) the lowest monthly reviews for that reviewer. As you can see only 6 reviewers (ignoring the bot) reached 30 or more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: IMO getting the number of regular reviewers up would be be a big plus for keeping NPP on firm ground. This would mean folks who are watching and active and likely would "dial up" as needed when the backlog grows. What do you think about trying the "consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- The processing that you are asking for isn't easy to get via SQL (at least I don't know of an easy way to do it). It might be possible to do this via a spreadsheet program. You do need the raw data for that for which you can use the results of this query which gives you the reviews done by a reviewer in every month that they did a minimum of 30 reviews. Hope it helps. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Cool! Is there a way to take the result as a file? (spreadsheet or similar)? Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. There is a blue "Download data" button, just above the results. There are many formats available to download, including CSV and Excel XLSX. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Thanks! I missed that. I'm going to create the discussed "streak" list from that. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824:I did it in a semi-automated way. The longest still-going streak is JTtheOG at 101 months and the second longest is a bunch of people at 4 months. Will take some noodling on what to suggest that is doable. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. There is a blue "Download data" button, just above the results. There are many formats available to download, including CSV and Excel XLSX. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: I was under the mistaken impression that just clicking on your link caused the query to run but now it appears that I was wrong. Is there a way to make it run/update? Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @North8000: I encourage you to register on Quarry. Once you do so, you'll find there's a button that says "Fork". When you press that you'll get that query in your own personal work space and you'll be able to run the query whenever you want. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Thanks. Will do. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've re-run the querry, so you can get the updated results from there. But, I'd suggest that you follow Josh's advice and fork the querry so that you can run it at will. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Thanks. Will (try to) do. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: @MPGuy2824: I think I did that and launched it a couple times. Both times it said "This query is currently executing" and then I gave up after 2 hours. Do you think I just need to wait longer or is it more likely that I'm doing something wrong? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- North, I've had trouble lately with queries that take a lot of time. Since you are only looking at results from 2024, I've tweaked the quarry. The results are now available, but please re-fork the quarry and re-run the results just to see if all is fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Thanks! Will do. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- North, I've had trouble lately with queries that take a lot of time. Since you are only looking at results from 2024, I've tweaked the quarry. The results are now available, but please re-fork the quarry and re-run the results just to see if all is fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: @MPGuy2824: I think I did that and launched it a couple times. Both times it said "This query is currently executing" and then I gave up after 2 hours. Do you think I just need to wait longer or is it more likely that I'm doing something wrong? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Thanks. Will (try to) do. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @North8000: I encourage you to register on Quarry. Once you do so, you'll find there's a button that says "Fork". When you press that you'll get that query in your own personal work space and you'll be able to run the query whenever you want. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Cool! Is there a way to take the result as a file? (spreadsheet or similar)? Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- The processing that you are asking for isn't easy to get via SQL (at least I don't know of an easy way to do it). It might be possible to do this via a spreadsheet program. You do need the raw data for that for which you can use the results of this query which gives you the reviews done by a reviewer in every month that they did a minimum of 30 reviews. Hope it helps. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: IMO getting the number of regular reviewers up would be be a big plus for keeping NPP on firm ground. This would mean folks who are watching and active and likely would "dial up" as needed when the backlog grows. What do you think about trying the "consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I replied to you by mistake (I meant to reply to Josh's message). The query that I linked to does not count the number of consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews. It instead shows (for the period Jan 2023 - Nov 2023) the lowest monthly reviews for that reviewer. As you can see only 6 reviewers (ignoring the bot) reached 30 or more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @MPGuy2824: Cool. I picked 30 days because I thought it was easier. But is that figure for number of months in the streak? if so, that first one says 53 years. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- To solidify an idea/proposal it would be to: Add a database listing of those who have who has gone the most 30 day periods with reviewing at least 30 articles in each 30 day period. And later on add awards based on that. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@MPGuy2824: I did that and tried to run I'd say 5 times and waited to about two hours each time where it just stayed qued or running with no completion. So I've just used your data. Do you think I jest need to be more patient (like let it wait/run all night) or is it likely that I'm doing something wrong? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
So I think that what is confirmed doable is list and award people that do at least 30 edits in every month of the year. And temporarily do the same by quarters starting with Q1 2024. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You mean 30 reviews, right? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Yes, reviews.....sorry. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think recognition is good. Please make sure to coordinate with @Dr vulpes so that we are not double awarding anything. What's the proposal exactly? Barnstars, listing on a page? How often would they be awarded? If someone achieves 30 reviews per month would they end up getting a barnstar every month? (which might be too much, should give some thought to our plan) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Per my post below I was thinking of an award (and being on a permanent list) for doing it every month for a calendar year. And after the first quarter, a listing of who is still in he running for the yearly award. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think recognition is good. Please make sure to coordinate with @Dr vulpes so that we are not double awarding anything. What's the proposal exactly? Barnstars, listing on a page? How often would they be awarded? If someone achieves 30 reviews per month would they end up getting a barnstar every month? (which might be too much, should give some thought to our plan) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Yes, reviews.....sorry. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a yearly award for people who do X reviews per quarter/month. Let me think about how to do the data management (Come March I will forget what I was doing). Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- I could easily calculate it on a quarterly and yearly basis using the data extracted by @MPGuy2824:'s query discussed above. So after each quarter it would show who is still in the running for the calendar year. Someone other than me (like a coordinator) would issue the award itself. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dr vulpes:@Novem Linguae: Quarterly criteria (at least 120 per quarter) would also be fine and has the advantage of somebody not getting booted from the running by just taking a 1 month break. If we want to do this we should announce it by early January (if monthly) or sometime in January if quarterly) IMO it would be a good move to have more editing "horsepower" in place which would notice and respond when the backlog climbs. Also would probably get more regular reviewers in place. A big burst of effort with backlog drives is also good. But when you look at the math, a big backlog (which is only about 2 weeks worth of reviews) is more of an indicator of lack of regular reviewers who notice and respond to climbing backlog. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I plan to start listing these here. We'll see if folks want it to go anywhere. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Starting 1/1/24, will do first listing after February is over. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- So for those who see this and are interested in being in this, do at least 30 reviews every month. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you did 30 reviews during January and want to stay in on this be sure to do 30 in February. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- So for those who see this and are interested in being in this, do at least 30 reviews every month. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through February. Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@A412:,@Atlantic306:,@Bastun:,@BoyTheKingCanDance:,@BuySomeApples:,@Chaotic Enby:,@CycloneYoris:,@Dcotos:,@DreamRimmer:,@Grahaml35:,@Hey man im josh:,@Hughesdarren:,@Ingratis:,@Ipigott:,@JTtheOG:,@Kj cheetham:,@MPGuy2824:,@Maile66:,@Mccapra:,@North8000:,@NotAGenious:,@Raydann:,@Rosguill:,@Rosiestep:,@Ryan shell:,@Sadads:,@Sagotreespirit:,@Significa liberdade:,@Skynxnex:,@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:,@TechnoSquirrel69:,@Umakant Bhalerao:,@WikiOriginal-9:
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @North8000, I think it would be a good idea to create a separate page to document these recognitions, as they might be overlooked if they're just added here. I'd be glad to set it up either in my userspace or on the NPP project pages. Let me know what you think. BTW, have you considered sending barnstars to these folks? – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer: Agree 100%. I think it would be a good NPP project page. I think that barnstars would be a good idea. Maybe at the 6 month point and definitely for the year. Not sure what the protocol would be to do that on behalf of the project. I didn't want to overstep. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’m also not a coordinator at NPP, but I try to help where I can. I can assist with maintenance, and when it’s time to distribute barnstars, we can reach out to Dr vulpes, a coordinator at NPP who handles awards, to ask for their help with distribution. This way, our coordination team can use some extra hands. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer: Sounds good to me. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’m also not a coordinator at NPP, but I try to help where I can. I can assist with maintenance, and when it’s time to distribute barnstars, we can reach out to Dr vulpes, a coordinator at NPP who handles awards, to ask for their help with distribution. This way, our coordination team can use some extra hands. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer: Agree 100%. I think it would be a good NPP project page. I think that barnstars would be a good idea. Maybe at the 6 month point and definitely for the year. Not sure what the protocol would be to do that on behalf of the project. I didn't want to overstep. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through March
[edit]Here are the results through March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@A412:@Atlantic306:@Bastun:@BoyTheKingCanDance:@BuySomeApples:@Chaotic Enby:@CycloneYoris:@DannyS712 bot III:@Dcotos:@DreamRimmer:@Grahaml35:@Hey man im josh:@Hughesdarren:@Ingratis:@Ipigott:@JTtheOG:@Kj cheetham:@MPGuy2824:@Maile66:@Mccapra:@North8000:@NotAGenious:@Rosguill:@Rosiestep:@Ryan shell:@Significa liberdade:@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:@Umakant Bhalerao:
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through April
[edit]Congrats! Here are the results through April. March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@A412:,@Atlantic306:,@BoyTheKingCanDance:,@CycloneYoris:,@DannyS712 bot III:,@Dcotos:,@Grahaml35:,@Hey man im josh:,@Hughesdarren:,@Ingratis:,@Ipigott:,@JTtheOG:,@MPGuy2824:,@Mccapra:,@North8000:,@NotAGenious:,@Rosguill:,@Rosiestep:,@Ryan shell:,@Significa liberdade:,
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Here are the results through May
[edit]Congrats! Here are the results through May. Each of these 17 folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want to stay in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@Atlantic306:,@BoyTheKingCanDance:,@CycloneYoris:,@DannyS712 bot III:,@Dcotos:,@Hey man im josh:,@Hughesdarren:,@Ingratis:,@Ipigott:,@JTtheOG:,@MPGuy2824:,@Mccapra:,@North8000:,@Rosguill:,@Rosiestep:,@Ryan shell:,@Significa liberdade:
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Recognition for consistent reviewing - Here are the results through October
[edit]Congrats! Here are the results through October. Each of these 12 folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want to stay in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@Atlantic306:,@BoyTheKingCanDance:,@CycloneYoris:,@Hey man im josh:,@Hughesdarren:,@Ipigott:,@JTtheOG:,@MPGuy2824:,@Mccapra:,@North8000:,@Rosiestep:,@Ryan shell:
North8000 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Reading Beans
[edit]Just a heads up that I've removed the NPR right from Reading Beans (see User talk:Reading Beans/Archives/2024/January#Autopatrolled). They were a prolific reviewer—4,465 article reviews in the last year—so unfortunately this will probably have an adverse effect on the size of the backlog. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Roger that. Thanks for sharing the info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Essays for inclusion to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School project page Essential further reading section
[edit]Hello to whomever makes comments to this talk page! Like I said on the NPP Reviewers talk page earlier today, I received an automated message on my talk page less than a week ago from a user that had included me on a mass message via the MediaWiki message delivery system to see if I'd be interested in joining NPP. After following the instructions of the message to read the tutorial page and guidelines for granting user rights, I went to the NPP permissions reviewer to attempt applying, but instead followed the link to the NPP training program project page. Upon reading the Common A7 mistakes essay listed in the "Essential further reading" page section, I found a couple other essays (the Common claims of significance or importance and Credible claim of significance essays) linked on its page that I was wondering why they were not included. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:CCS is already linked from WP:NPP. I've never heard of Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance, so maybe it is a less popular essay. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @CommonKnowledgeCreator: You could create a new section of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources with speedy deletion tips, if you want – Joe (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Filter Request: Articles with no Talk page
[edit]Is there a setting on the new pages feed or new pages that allows you to see which articles are missing a corresponding talk page? For example, you can filter for articles that "have no categories" or "may be orphaned." Is there a similar filter for articles lacking talk pages? If so, where can I find it? If not, could we add it to the new pages feed filtering capabilities? Thanks! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- We definitely could add it. Feel free to file a phabricator task for it :) Sohom (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sohom Datta - I have added the request in Phabricator. You can see it at phab:T363122. Please let me know if you think I should make any changes. Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Re-review of MIAX Pearl Equities and NCORP
[edit]Hi BoyTheKingCanDance. I'm only partially through a BEFORE for the topic right now, but I am struggling to see how MIAX Pearl Equities can meet the SNG criteria set out at WP:NCORP. Are you aware of any sources not present in the article that satisfy ORGCRIT? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's at AfD now, not much point of discussing it here. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that a few minutes after I added the {{Notability}} tag lol. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the future, a topic like this might be a better fit for user talk ot WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to do it to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 actually, just realised this wasn't that page now. Must have clicked the wrong button somewhere. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the future, a topic like this might be a better fit for user talk ot WT:NPPR. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that a few minutes after I added the {{Notability}} tag lol. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for delay
[edit]Please accept my apologies for delay in starting to help with this backlog effort. This month I have had very little free time to do this, but I intend to start soon. Storye book (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- No problem @Storye book, every bit helps and there's no pressure to contribute to the drive. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll get there soon. Storye book (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)