Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Reviewers
Curation tool
Suggestions		Coordination
NPP backlog
Articles
14381 ↑109
Oldest article
2 years old
Redirects
23559
Oldest redirect
3 months old
Article reviews
1848
Redirect reviews
4769
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • There is a very large redirects backlog

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Thanks! I missed that. I'm going to create the discussed "streak" list from that. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Thanks. Will do. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Thanks. Will (try to) do. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Thanks! Will do. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You mean 30 reviews, right? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Yes, reviews.....sorry. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Starting 1/1/24, will do first listing after February is over. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: Sounds good to me. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reviewing backlog[edit]

Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but...surely there must be a way to automate NPP backlogs without depending on volunteers to carry the full load. A BOT could automatically reject unsourced articles and provide a relative response to the article creator, and the same for submissions with copyvios, poor sourcing, etc. BOTs can tag them quicker and more efficiently. Actually, a BOT could work hand-in-hand with the source rating BOTs such as User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. If we could automate the tedious parts and leave human reviewers to review only those articles that are notable, follow MOS, and are actually qualified for inclusion. AfC should only be releasing qualified articles, so maybe it is time to stop allowing just anyone to create articles in mainspace. Just a thought. Atsme 💬 📧 18:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bot that auto draftified articles with no citations might have trouble detecting if general references or a weird citation format are used. We do have a report for likely candidates though, to help reviewers spot them: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Probable "draftify because of no sources" candidates
A copyvio detection bot would suffer from the same problems with edge cases. Just because something is 50% on Earwig doesn't mean it's necessarily a copyright violation. It could be public domain, a big list of book titles, etc. We do use bots such as EranBot to look for likely copyright violations and put them in a report, but the final decision needs a human touch.
I don't think there's currently consensus to decline/reject/AFD articles simply because they have MOS problems such as no headings or a non-bolded title. MOS is not part of the flowcharts of NPP or AFC.
I like your thinking. We should always be looking for ways to make our processes more efficient. Too bad the problems are a bit on the complicated side. Many of the simple solutions have already been implemented, I think! –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every article in the new page feed is the work of a human being who, whether or not you like the result, almost certainly contributed it in good faith. Rejecting them without even having another human being look at them is a terrible idea and would be disastrous for the reproduction of our editor base.
Also your regular reminder that there is no policy prohibiting the creation of unsourced articles and draftifying articles solely because they lack citations is a questionable practice, at best. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joe Roe: as a frequent draftifier, why is draftifying unsourced (and therefore unverifiable) articles a questionable practice? Not trying to be snarky, genuinely trying to learn. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable means that a fact cannot be verified at all, not that it is currently lacking a citation. Our verifiability policy does not require that everything is cited, only four specific types of material. So if you're draftifying something purely because it's unsourced, you're removing an article from mainspace that doesn't actually violate any policies, skipping over preferable options (like adding a citation yourself or the {{unreferenced}} maintenance tag), and measurably decreasing the chance that the article will be improved by moving it to a much less visible namespace. If you're interested, I recently wrote more about why I don't draftify articles when patrolling at User:Joe Roe/Seven tips for new page patrolling. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog is obviously surging again just a month after the previous backlog drive. I would argue that if feasible, a bot can be used to perform the Wikignome tasks (i.e., tagging for orphans, uncategorised, or detect basic cases where the title within body is not bolded, sort of like how AfD votes are detected, it won't work for complex cases but is better than nothing). However, bots shouldn't be used to automatically tag 50%+ copyvio articles per Earwig with revdel/copyright problem/G12 because of the significant rate of false positives (public domain, CC-BY-SA-3.0 compatible license, list of book titles, list of studies, and the like).
The same goes with drafting unreferenced articles- the automatic detections on PageCuration software doesn't work for articles with no footnotes but with general referencing or other unusual citation formats (which is a fairly high false positive rate). I also don't agree that every article that is unreferenced should automatically be processed by a bot. VickKiang (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wikignome stuff such as maintenance tags aren't a required part of the flowchart. It can be skipped to speed up reviewing. The important parts of the flowchart are CSD (which includes copyvio check), notability, and title check. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, and often skip these processes myself. I am mainly arguing that is the only part that some (but not all) of NPRs do that I think can be (partially) automated, although I am am not sure 1) if it is feasible for a bot to constantly update data on whether a page is linked to a mainspace article and whether it has categories, 2) many editors do enjoy gnoming, and 3) it won't have a huge effect in reducing the backlog, only save the time of many diligent WikiGnomes.
By contrast, the key steps are often contentious clearly require human judgement (based upon current bot capabilities), and would have a much higher risk of having a damaging effect to newcomers due to false positives. For example, consistent false positive tags and flaggings of copyvio based only a bot would definitely deter newcomers and possibly dwindle the editing base. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to deprecate NPP school?[edit]

According to the table at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School#Available Trainers, only three users went through NPP school in the last year. It lists seven active trainers, but two of them explicitly state they are not taking on new students and one is taking an indefinite break from NPP, leaving four actually available trainers, only two of which have taken a student in the last year. In total 32 students have 'graduated' in the five or so years NPP school has been running, compared to roughly 484 users granted the perm in the same time period.

This inactivity shows that most users and most WP:PERM admins do not think NPP School is necessary to become a new page patroller. There's a small minority of reviewers who did come through it, and presumably found it useful, but realistically, with the small number of trainers, that opportunity is not really there for most people even if they were interested. With backlogs and recruitment both pressing issues, I'm also not sure why we would want to encourage people to go through a lengthy training process rather than simply applying at WP:PERM and getting stuck in immediately – which is what most people do anyway.

Thoughts? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think NPP school is great and should be revitalized rather than closed. I think most students that finished the program will agree with me and attest to its usefulness. I am an NPP school graduate, and the opportunity to train under and receive the mentorship of a top patroller really skyrocketed my NPP skills.
It's been on my list to reach out to the list of trainers and get the list updated, then put out a call for more trainers. Will do so now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't go through NPP school myself, but I agree it would be better to revitalize rather than close it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you're in a rather extreme minority there. What is the benefit of trying to revitalise a process that the vast majority of reviewers have not found it worth engaging with? – Joe (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPP school is a process that has helped 32 people become better patrollers, and hurt 0 people. It is a net positive, and should be continued as long as there are volunteers willing to put time into it, which there are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Joe here. As a graduate myself, I can say firsthand that PERM admins consider going through the school an asset. I was declined one week, went through NPP school for a few weeks, and was accepted right away. It is a net positive and should stay. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a PERM admin, I can say firsthand that I don't... – Joe (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You’ve made that clear above, but I have a different experience and therefore disagree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through NPP school and it was most definitely helpful. I can't see a reason to depreciate it just because it's not in constant use. It's designed for people to chose to take the course to become a better patroller. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 18:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the "best of both worlds" would be to clarify what it is and what it's place is. It sounds like what its place is is a thorough training program (just) for people who choose that route. This would avoid the downside of scaring away people who would feel guilty/second class for trying NPP without choosing to go through that program. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to worry about the latter, given that at least 95% of current patrollers didn't bother with NPP School. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "I'm not good enough/ I'm not doing it good/thoroughly enough" sentiment is a drag on participation. Like when somebody rips me a new one for not doing a thorough search and analysis of literature in China to confirm lack of GNG coverage before AFD'ing an article. "Didn't go through NPP school" is of course only one possibility for this. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus against removing the school and the coordinators are actively working to revamp it. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in with all NPP school instructors[edit]

@Barkeep49, Cassiopeia, Rosguill, Atsme, Onel5969, Joseywales1961, and Zippybonzo:. Hello NPP school instructors! We'd like to update the list of active instructors, in preparation for putting out a call for more instructors. Can you please reply here and state 1) if you are currently accepting new NPP school students, and 2) if you are not, if you have plans to resume NPP school instruction in the future? At the moment only Cassiopeia and Zippybonzo are listed as accepting students. Also, feel free to give any other thoughts you have about NPP school, your experiences teaching it, and its future. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy to pick-up any slack if all the other teachers have students. It's the holiday season so my volunteer time is strained until after the New Year. Let's give the other teachers a chance to teach. I will keep an eye out if things get overly busy. Atsme 💬 📧 14:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count you've trained nearly two thirds of the people who've been through NPP School, Atsme, so you've already picked up plenty of slack! But honestly, not to in any way lessen that work, but I think that is another weakness of the NPP School model. New NPPers should be learning from a broad range of peers and, above all, their own personal experience and and reading of community policy, not a single trainer's take on how to handle new pages. We can put out a call now and get a bunch people to put their name in a table, but if most of the work has been put on Atsme's shoulders despite having half a dozen or more trainers listed for the last six years, why will it be different this time? – Joe (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added myself to the list, if that helps any. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps a lot. Thank you very much :) Are you thinking of copying the long curriculum that most of the instructors use, or Atsme's short curriculum, or doing your own thing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was honestly thinking of doing my own thing. I only put my availability as one student at a time, and I thought what I did would be based on what the student's starting skills looked like. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That can work, but I’d definitely suggest looking at the other curriculums for inspiration. It also explains more about what things should be taught. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So where can these curriculums be found? Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School has a syllabus which mostly seems to consist of links to various policy and guideline pages, which obviously the person would need to be familiar with, but I'm not sure if that's the curriculum you are referring to. Where can I find Atsme's short curriculum?
Back in 2016 when Kudpung was trying to reorganize NPP and make the NPP school more of a thing (I know it was already a thing, but it was underutilized - and I have no earthly idea why I did not add myself as a trainer back then), I put together a User:ONUnicorn/NPP Quiz which I thought would be a good starting point for evaluating a person's skills. I'm not sure if I would use that today or not.
I've also, since I became an admin, been keeping some notes on some of the issues I'm seeing with speedy tags. User:ONUnicorn/thoughts on deletion is not set up to be a tool for teaching others, mostly just a place to dump thoughts and frustrations, but I may use some of those observations to teach students to avoid common pitfalls. I don't know. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Atsme/NPP training/Archive 1 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and re-wrote the trainer's resources just now. Hope this is more helpful: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School/Instruction methods. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have time to take on new students but am starting a job next month so I'm not 100% on top of my schedule and availability just yet. signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to take on new students at this time. If you want to remvoe me from the list because I don't know when I will take new students that's fine but I'm also very good with being kept on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I ended up creating an "inactive" section and moved some folks down there. Feel free to move yourself back up if you get time in the future. Thanks for all the time you spend on wiki-related activities. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So yep I am taking students admittedly lost touch with a few but I am working with one at the moment who hopefully will show some merit. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 18:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to take up more students under my guidance. Cassiopeia talk 17:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger that. Thanks for sharing the info. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Coordination&oldid=1218616260"