![Caution Caution](https://web.archive.org/web/20220412135822im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Zhwp_Question_Mark.svg/30px-Zhwp_Question_Mark.svg.png)
NPP Backlog (how to use this chart)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42 |
Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
NPP chart updating
In case you've been wondering why it wasn't updating, there was a problem with the database. It's now fixed thanks to the efforts of Nettrom, but it means there are no entries between 9 February and today. (t · c) buidhe 16:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Ban draftifying articles more than 30 days old
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Ban draftifying articles more than 30 days old. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
One final time
And with that, I bid NPP adieu. Good luck to you all. Onel5969 TT me 19:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your service @Onel5969:, enjoy your freedom! :) Polyamorph (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nuts. Onel, I'm sorry you're feeling like that. You'll always be welcome back, and we will sure as hell miss you. Girth Summit (blether) 20:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- "So you want me to be half monk and half hitman?" It's high-wire act :/ Thanks for all the shit-shoveling! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, Sad. This will create an unfillable gap in NPP, pal. --Gazal world (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- if only I had gotten to your UTP sooner. Please consider taking a break? I've been encouraged and expected to adopt the WP:IDGAF approach, but it's difficult to balance that approach with being a good NPP/AfC reviewer, GA/FA promoter, and striving to do one's best. It's all about perspective, and how well we're able to adjust to the perspectives of others, be they right or wrong. Atsme 💬 📧 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just back myself from a wee holiday break and saddened to read this. Thank you for all your hard work and I really hope you can see fit to come back at some point. Josey Wales Parley 20:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Retiring
I am also retiring from NPP, having patrolled new pages since August 2019 I'd like to focus on article content. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a healthy idea. See you around! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for all your efforts. That's what I've been focused on this past week, article creation. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
REFUND
Just found a glitch, when English Ceramic Circle popped up on my watchlist. Not sure I ever noticed this before, but if an article gets prodded, and then is restored through Refund, it does not get put back in the NPP queue. Just thought you might like to know. Onel5969 TT me 22:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Memory refresh needed
We have a biography that was created in 2004. We have a draft that was created March 2022 by a user that was blocked for having a shared account. The user declared they are professional editors and publishers. I'm of the mind the draft should be deleted. There is currently a merge request, and I'm unfamiliar with merging drafts by blocked users into existing articles. Thoughts, please? Atsme 💬 📧 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Adding that there is a merge discussion at Talk:Dorothy Hewett. Atsme 💬 📧 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Advice - new to the process
I'm a new NPPer and would like to talk an example through to make sure I'm clear what I'm doing. I'm looking at Eggert family, created a few days ago. It is not marked as having been reviewed, but it has been tagged as needing more citations and proposed and then declined for speedy deletion. What is the most helpful thing to do with this one? On the face of it, it looks to me as if it fails GNG in its current form. Should I mark as reviewed but leave a comment for the page creator to suggest they address the citations and notability issue? Should I tag with notability concerns? It doesn't appear to meet the criteria for draftifying. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I always check copyvio and notability before anything else. If it's notability, off to AfD. No point draftifying or calling for further work if it's a notability issue because the possibilities are 1) the person doesn't work on it, it's deleted after 6months in draftspace 2) they do work on it, wasting time on a non-notable topic (non-notability can't be fixed by any amount of editing). (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- When reviewing, I recommend following the NPP flowchart to the letter. Here is a color coded version I made that helps me visualize it. You'll notice that the only time you should mark as reviewed is 1) if it passes everything in the flowchart, or 2) if you replace the article with a redirect, or 3) if the article is AFD'd. If the article is tagged for CSD or tagged for PROD, or if you simply apply a maintenance tag and/or start a discussion with the user but the topic is not notable, it should not be marked as reviewed, as the creator can just remove the tag and then there is no system to catch this and they have snuck an article through. Remember that marking an article as reviewed allows Google to begin crawling it, which means there's hoards of spammers, SEO folks, and undisclosed paid editors that try to sneak non-notable articles through our process in order to get their clients on Wikipedia, the #10 website in the world when ranked by traffic. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm not sure that I understand:
...or if you simply apply a maintenance tag and/or start a discussion with the user, it should not be marked as reviewed...
. Surely, if an article is otherwise fine, but is tagged with for example, an orphan template, it should be marked reviewed, even if the creator could simply remove that tag. Did I misunderstand you? Vexations (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- I edited my comment above to clarify. Thanks for catching. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae I'm not sure that I understand:
Clarification
I observed what I thought to be a sketchy looking article thus I quickly opened this AFD, my question is, do we consider NPOL to be an SNG or are the two criteria an indication of notability? as opposed to being an sng? Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Recent attempts to turn the single-subject notability guidelines into single-subject common outcomes are confusing. For NPP, I assume we can treat them as single-subject notability guidelines, and for borderline cases, an AFD can determine the final outcome. Let me know if I'm off the mark here or if you guys agree.
- As to that specific article/AFD, I don't think candidates have ever qualified under NPOL. Need to actually have been elected to state or federal office, right?–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)