Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Does the community still want moved pages to be unreviewed. Sohom (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking additional NPP recruitment coordinator

It's no secret that our backlogs have been continuously growing for a while now, seemingly only held off from going completely out of control by backlog drives.

As such, in an effort to help with this issue, the coordinator team is looking for individuals interested in taking on additional roles. To be more specific, we're looking for someone interested in helping to recruit individuals and to nominate others for the autopatrolled user right. Please let us know here, privately, or elsewhere, if you'd be interested in volunteering. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that anybody can nominate another editor for this right at WP:PERM/A. If you find yourself marking many articles by the same editor as reviewed, and they've created more than 25 articles, please do nominate them. It's a very helpful tool in keeping the backlog under control. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there a special requirement as to who can volunteer to nominate and invite? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Bug with "no citations" issue?

Page Curation lists "No citations - This page does not cite any sources" as one of the possible issues with this revision of Nakadomari (archaeological site). I can understand that it might miss references cited in unusual ways, but this has {{cite}} templates in footnotes and a {{reflist}} under the heading "references" – completely standard. Can anybody figure out what's going on? Is this a bug? – Joe (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay it seems the issues don't stick to old revisions, so you'll have to trust me it was there. It disappeared after this edit. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I assume this is generated by a search of the article's unparsed text looking for, or rather the lack of, <ref> or <ref name within the text. It generates the 'No citations' tag in articles with refs using the short footnotes template {{sfn}} and in articles with a general references section but no inline references, neither of which contain <ref> or <ref name.
It also seems to ignore refs within a template such as {{Music ratings}}. I don't know if this is deliberate with the logic that templates only provide supplemental information and its the body of the text that needs to be examined?
None of which is applicable here. I did think it might be a cache problem, an earlier version not having refs and the tag remaining after refs have been added, but Nakadomari (archaeological site) has had refs from it's creation. This is not the first time I have come across this but can't see any reason why it happens.--John B123 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you put a writeup of this problem on Phabricator, given that it happened after a move, I wonder if it is a regression, however, it probably needs further analysis. Sohom (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't provide a reproducible example but I can copy the above to phabricator, if it helps? – Joe (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Pavel Romanov (drummer) is currently showing in the queue as having no citations but is referenced. 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections was showing as having no citations but the tag disappeared after I added {{uncategorised}} to the page. Both of these articles have recently been moved. Possibly related, the content snippet in the feed for Pavel Romanov (drummer) shows REDIRECT Pavel Romanov (drummer) and the snippet for 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections showed REDIRECT 2023 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council elections prior to my edit. --John B123 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Also No. 29 Squadron PAF, Dan Phillips (musician), Kampong Ku F.C. and Al-Jazira Front (Anglo-Turkish War, 1918–1923) are referenced but show up in the queue as having no citations and have 'Redirect (article name)' as the content snippet. All 4 have been recently moved and had no edits since the move. It would seem moving the page causes the problem which resolves when you edit the page. I have no experience of Phabricator so perhaps somebody else could add it there. Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for these examples. I was able to reproduce on testwiki. Confirmed bug, will fix. phab:T371168Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Needs more sources to establish notability

I'd like to understand better what reviewers mean when they move an article to draftspace because it needs more sources to establish notability – one of the canned reasons provided by the draftify script. More specifically, in what circumstances do you expect sources establishing notability to be present in an article? And how do you foresee the creator responding to this rationale?

Take Draft:Christopher Clemens for example, recently draftified for this reason by Hey man im josh (sorry, I don't mean to criticise this action specifically, I just needed an example and it's representative). It has one citation to one source that fully verifies the current content. If we assume that there are more sources available, where should they be placed? Adding an inline citation to the current text would be superfluous because it is already fully verified, and they might not actually support that material. Is it expected that the creator expand the article with the additional sources? Or can they be provided elsewhere, e.g. in a further reading section, on the talk page, or to the reviewer directly? In either case, how is it communicated to the creator that a) this is what they should do and b) they should have done so in the first place? – Joe (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree the single reference fully verifies the content. It doesn't verify he is American, an astronomer, a physicist or that he obtained a PhD at the University of Texas at Austin. It does say he was chair of the department of physics and astronomy, but that doesn't make him an astronomer or a physicist. His predecessor in the role, Bob Blouin, is a professor in the pharmaceutical division of the department.
As notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, an article with only one source cannot show that the subject is notable. The purpose of NPP is to ensure new articles meet, as a minimum, the core content policies, one of which is notability. It's beyond the scope of NPP to advise how editors should should change the article to make it compliant. (Although most patrollers would offer advice if asked). There are various help pages such as Help:Your first article which gives advice on most issues that come to light during NPP, or the Village Pump where advice can be sought.
The bigger question here is how we educate (generally) newer users about core policies so we don't get into these situations, rather than how patrollers deal with them. --John B123 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks John. That article was just an example; the broader point is that we can assume that verifiability was not the reason it was removed from mainspace because none of those claims were highlighted as lacking citations.
Notability actually isn't a core content policy or even a policy at at all. That's one reason that I've always said that NPP shouldn't worry about it too much. But that aside, and taking your point that is isn't NPPers job to coach editors, the purpose of draftifying articles is supposed to be to allow space for their improvement. Assuming they can find resources like WP:YFA themselves, how is an editor expected to improve an article that lacks sources establishing notability? – Joe (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Regarding matters of notability for biographical subjects, there are differing schools of thought that are represented on the "Notability (people)" (WT:BIO) Talk page – where there is well informed, robust, and ample discussion (sometimes to a fault). From what I've gleaned there, it seems likely that for the purposes of NPP, someone who is the provost of a major American university such as UNC Chapel Hill (sticking with the example above) would be presumed to be notable and is very likely to meet WP:GNG via WP:SNG (e.g., WP:ANYBIO #1, 2, and possibly 3; WP:NACADEMIC #5, 6, etc.; or just plain WP:COMMONSENSE). Although consensus remains elusive (and seemingly somewhat unlikely), WT:BIO is an excellent place to gain a better understanding of the nuances involved (although perhaps slightly advanced for the greenest of the WP:YFA crowd). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Notability can be a minefield, especially SNGs. I've seen numerous debates at AfD and RfC with widely differing opinions on SNGs. SNGs can themselves be confusing, for example, and relevant here: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes item 6c Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). So a provost may or may not be notable under the SNG. --John B123 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's (IMO) practical advice for articles like the example. Do one of these three:

  1. Establish meeting GNG. Include at least two independent published sources that cover him in depth
  2. Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in WP:NACADEMIC
  3. Establish in the article or sources that he meets the special criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's say the creator goes with #1. How, specifically, should they include these two sources in the article? – Joe (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m a little confused by this question because you’ve already suggested many perfectly fine ways: hanging them on an existing sentence they verify; expanding the article; sticking them in a “further reading” section; sticking them on the talk page. If someone linked them on my talk page as the reviewer, that would be less helpful but I’d add them to the article myself and then undraftify. All of those options would make it clear to the reviewer that notability is met. Is there a reason you think there would only be one specific right way? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Right, I'm asking to confirm that those are the kind of things reviewers expect to happen after draftifying an article, and/or whether one way is preferred over others (though no there doesn't necessarily have to be one). I'm also trying to put myself in the shoes of a newer editor and imagine, given the rather concise message they get about the draftification, a) how they would know that those are their options and b) which one to pick. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I was just giving a suggested way to navigate the complex situation. I think that inclusion of the GNG sources is the important thing under #1 and any of the many ways would be fine. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I typically expect a newer editor will use the AfC process to make articles, and indeed draftification is a nudge that the editor in question ought to use that process. When I review at AfC is when I put in the effort to handhold. If an editor wants to create directly in mainspace I tend to feel like they should know what notability is and how to add a source to an article. (When they started the article, after all, they got a pop up with many useful tips, including WP:YFA and the article wizard.) If they don’t know these things, they can ask at the teahouse or their wiki-mentor (if they were assigned one). Or click any of the thirteen informative links in the draft template that gets placed on the article after draftification. Are you seeing good-faith editors getting draftified and not understanding what they need to do to address it? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I don't really understand how you're supposed to respond to this issue, and I'm not particularly new. It's not a question of knowing how to cite sources technically, but if you already know that the subject is notable, and you've already cited sources for all the information that's actually in the article, then why and how are you supposed to produce these extra sources? I don't know what new editors think about draftifications (it'd be great if someone did a proper study of that one of these days), but what I see is that a lot of creators who receive this message simply abandon their article, moreso than more straightforward issues like "has no sources" or "you have a conflict of interest". A reasonable hypothesis to explain that is that they don't understand what to do, but I don't know for sure.
I'm getting the impression that what many reviewers (NPP and AfC) want to see is a list of GNG-qualifying sources in the references section of an article. In practice, this means that in most cases the creator will have to write the article around these sources, which is not necessarily an obvious thing to do. The 'old fashioned' view of notability is that it is a quality of the topic that is discussed at AfD, not something that shapes the content of the article – that comes mainly down to WP:NPOV#What to include and exclude. Current policies and guidelines still reflect that view. If the article ends up in draftspace the creator will probably get the hint, because for better or worse AfC has codified "GNG sources up-front" as an extra requirement of that process, but that doesn't help them get it right in the first place and we shouldn't be enforcing the AfC project's local consensus in mainspace (I also don't think your view that new editors ought to use AfC is widely-held or supported by policy, it is optional). An editor that simply familiarises themselves with written policies and creates an article directly is likely to be surprised by the expectation to cite GNG-qualifying sources, because not only is that expectation not in those policies, it is apparently contradicted by several of them (e.g. WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE). That seems like a problem to me. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I never even run into new editors anymore. If there are new editors, they are usually pulled in by the administrative side of things and not writing articles. New editors are nudged toward AfC where they have to wait 3+ months for someone look at their draft, which by that time any enthusiasm they had will likely be gone if they even remember to come back. And with the move away from easy-to-understand SNGs in recent years towards GNG-only on Wikipedia, their draft will likely get declined anyway. And you have to have 500+ edits and 6+ months to get access to Newspapers.com (at least you used to, I don't see any guidance at WP:NEWSPAPERS about requirements). Newspapers.com only has stuff from the USA anyway. And all of that is assuming any new editors can even find WP:NEWSPAPERS. There are too many hoops to jump through for new editors nowadays. Most just don't bother. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
If you would like to run into new editors more often and help them maintain the spark of joy that wikipedia can bring, you might consider signing up as a mentor. Some info on that feature here. Signup at Special:EnrollAsMentor. Automatically-assigned newbies will get a little interface that makes it easy for them to ask you questions at your talk page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:Notability is confusing. But for most cases where this comes up (people, bands, businesses, performers, recordings, video products ) the subject usually doesn't meet an SNG requirement, and "GNG sources up front" is great advice and a practical necessity. If one can't find them, it probably shouldn't be a separate article. And when you do find them, they are what to build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think Joe has correctly identified a tension within the enwiki community about article creation - there is an "older" view that notability inheres in topics that meet GNG or a relevant SNG, and that the notability of the topic need not necessarily be present in initial article sourcing (though sometimes, as with biographies of living people, sources should be present).
Then there is a "newer" view that the notability of a topic should be demonstrated in all published versions of each article through GNG/NBASIC/NORG-level sourcing (depending on the topic). NPP and AfC reviewers tend to be acculturated in this newer view, and have been known to make contributions (e.g., at AfD and policy discussions) that implicitly or explicitly deny that the "older" view exists or that it continues to be reflected in enwiki policy (which it generally does).
This tension does give rise to various issues, but I'm not sure what can be done about it, apart from more people becoming aware that these two perspectives are both reasonably widely held. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, wp:notability is complicated but in my ~15 years I haven't seen any big shift or overarching view at AFC or NPP. Also NPP'ers I think simply try to implement the wp:notability guidelines as written. So it simply means meeting GNG or a recognized SNG. At AFC the reviewers often don't follow the AFC standard which is that if it has a good chance of surviving at AFD it should be passed. Which most of the time boils down to meeting/ not meeting wp:notability. Often I've seen afc reviewers decline articles for different criteria such as article quality issues. Another layer of complexity is that the defacto GNG standard at AFC is a bit more lenient in some areas than a strict interpretation of GNG and it takes a few thousand reviews and a close look at a few hundred AFD's to try to learn what that standard is. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid I disagree about one key aspect of this - NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval, and WP:N doesn't carry that requirement. I didn't mean to imply that NPP or AfC standards had changed over time, either; I just meant that when AfC and NPP were introduced, they imposed a standard that was different from WP:N as it already existed.
The only thing that I might see as temporal is the "leaching" of AfC and NPP-derived norms into AfD discussions: I haven't done any systematic study, but I doubt that as many editors based their AfD !votes on the current sourcing of an article, back in Ye Olden Dayes (but of course, I could be entirely wrong about that). Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I've certainly seen that kind of drift and tension over my time here. I don't think it can be waved away as NPPers enforcing GNG "as written" – because you'll find nothing there about citing sources in articles for notability purposes or assessing the notability of a subject based on the sources in the article (quite the opposite). I'm not here to grouch and say that the old ways are automatically better, but it is a problem if de facto expectations have diverged from written expectations, because newbies only have a chance of learning the latter. Like Newimpartial I'm unsure of what to do about it: whether to try and get the new generation of NPPers to return to policy as written, or to try to adapt policy and better inform creators about the new regime. Neither are easy, which is probably why this tension has been left to grow for so long. My aim here was to try and better understand what the de facto expectations are, to look for places where we might meet in the middle.
As for AfC, it's always been a little askew of the wider community when it comes to eventualism vs. immediatism (a function of seeing only the worst articles, I suppose). I suspect that part of the explanation for NPP's drift in that direction is that from when we set up the NPR user right in 2016, we focused heavily on recruiting AfC reviewers rather than say AfD regulars or people who've written a lot of new articles. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the above "NPP and AfC procedures typically require that an article contain sources that demonstrate notability "right now" for approval" that is more of a practical reality than a philosophy. What is the practical alternative? The impossible hypothetical .......for a reviewer to solidly determine that GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world before declining, draftifying or AFD'ing an article? North8000 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The alternative is not to worry about notability unless there's a specific reason to doubt it and/or compounding problems. Many reviewers already work this way and have done for years. And if there is a reason to suspect the subject is not notable, take it to AfD after doing the usual due diligence, which does not require establishing that "GNG sources do not exist anywhere in the world". – Joe (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I think an article can be notable without containing the sources in the article. It is part of WP:BEFORE that these sources must be checked before filing an AFD. However this must also be balanced with the current practice of requiring at least some sources in the article to avoid draftification or BLPPROD. Finally, I am pretty tired of talking about this. It is just a rehash of the inclusionist vs deletionist and anti-draftspace vs pro-draftspace tensions that have been discussed in a dozen places around Wikipedia over the last year or two. There is very little to be gained from talking about it over and over again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Joe Roe: Some reviewers may not evaluate overall notability, but I always do. With experience comes a bit of comfort in doing so.
I don't personally draftify borderline cases. I may however draftify when there's no verifiable claim to notability. I wouldn't do so for an obvious chance of a WP:NPOL or WP:NGEO pass, but I'd be much more likely to do it for something that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NSONG, or WP:NALBUM. If it's not an obvious claim, and there's significant work to be done, I'll consider it. If it's been a few days, especially if there were maintenance tags added that weren't addressed, I'll be more likely to consider it.
I believe you also follow the page that tracks draftifications, in which case you're probably aware that I have reversed hundreds of draftifications, specifically actually referencing a close you made about the 90 day limit.
There's not a hard line in the sand and it's often a gut feet. I think I'm being kinder by sending to draft space instead of AfD at times, that way people can work on it.
I think if you review my draft log you will see somewhat of a pattern, and I like to think most of them are at least ones someone could reasonably argue in favour of. Draft space is optional. I'll never double draftify a page, but I do believe in its usage.
To be clear, I'm also open to criticisms. I'm also aware you're not one in favour of over using draft space. I think there's a middle ground higher than your threshold, but I respect the argument you're making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talkcontribs)
@Hey man im josh: I'm sorry, I really don't mean to criticise your action here. As you gathered I have seen many of your moves to and from draftspace, and if I thought you were doing something wrong I would have told you. I used an article that you draftified as an example precisely because I know that you're an experienced and confident reviewer, and that seemed fairer than picking on a newer reviewer. I'm not here to make an argument against draftifying, just to better understand expectations regarding this specific reason and how it can be reconciled with written policies and guidelines (it is not currently documented in WP:DRAFTIFY or anywhere else as far as I can tell).
You're of course welcome to assess notability when reviewing. If I'm understanding you correctly, when you use this reason (at least in cases in this), you actually have checked for notability and not found it, but want to give the creator a chance to prove otherwise? I hadn't considered that possibility. It seems a much more promising starting point for untying this knot. But if you don't mind elaborating further, do you not worry that this reduces the chance that another editor (i.e. not the creator), would find the sources, as often happens at AfD? – Joe (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if NPP's didn't have to worry about wp:notability our job would be immensely easy. I could probably OK 1,000 articles per hour. And Wikipedia would become several billion resumes, advertisements for businesses and people in trades and businesses, and their products and services. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well great news, you don't have to. No on-wiki guideline ever said that you did. And you can delete things for being resumes or being an advert, regardless of notability. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with North here. Whilst resumes and adverts can be deleted, that's more about writing style than subject. You can still write about about a non-notable person, business or product without it coming across as an advert or resume. Consider another case, every track a fans favourite band/singer has ever recorded having it's own article. We already see this attempted at the back of the NPP queue with redirects of songs or albums being converted to stubs with little content except a track listing or a 'nth track of X album' and a list of band members. IMO NPP not checking for notability opens the floodgates and could lead to Wikipedia being more of a collection of information than an encyclopaedia. --John B123 (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand, "NPP doesn't have to systematically check notability" is not a suggestion, it's a description of the current reality. The idea that notability is our job is relatively new; anecdotally I started hearing it 5-6 years ago (I suspect WP:ACPERM has a lot to do with it, since before then we were so pressed with blatant junk that it would have been absurd to suggest that we should also become the enforcers of the GNG cult). Many of us still stick to that pragmatic approach to reviewing and the house isn't falling down around us, just like it didn't in the first ~10 years of NPP when it was almost exclusively focused on CSD tagging. If an article is on a potentially non-notable subject but isn't a resume, advert, or similar violation of WP:NOT, then you're automatically out of the realm of pressing problems that NPP needs to deal with right now and into the murky swamp of articles to maybe AfD at some point. For example, many editors have no problem with album articles that mainly consist of track listing, that's why we have so many of them. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to put Your excellent essay Seven tips for new page patrolling is helpful.someplace where it could be more easily found? It would be a good read for anyone who is new to NPP (and, for that matter, the old-guard too). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
PS: Strike part of the above: it is already linked at the bottom of the Tutorial Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl3phact0 (talkcontribs)
Honestly, there's a lot of worry about the NPP backlog, and "don't worry about notability" being clearly communicated probably would help cut it really dramatically. Of course, obviously unsuitable articles or ones that are at the "well, I can't quite A7 it, but..." level are still NPP's problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the "Check for copyvio"?

This might seem silly, but where is the "Check for copyvio" link on the NPP toolbar? I haven't been doing patrol for a month but that tool seems to be gone now. Thank you! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Not sure if there was a dedicated NPP copyvio tool, though I have been using User:The Earwig/copyvios.js to add a "copyvio check" link to my main toolbar. Complex/Rational 01:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Another option, which I prefer and use, is MoreMenu, which adds a bunch of useful links in addition to this tool in a drop-down. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying that User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js, which normally displays in the toolbar info pane, no longer displays? Perhaps we inadvertently broke it during the vue migration. Maybe an HTML class name changed. Cc DannyS712Novem Linguae (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, its broken, probably from the rewrite in Vue - I'll add this to my todo list --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
@SunDawn @ComplexRational @Novem Linguae @TechnoSquirrel69 should be fixed now --DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you sir! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, what do I gotta do to become a member of the community? I'm eager to join and help with the backlog. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Typically you would apply at WP:PERM/NPR, and we would then likely grant you a trial. In this case, I'll skip that step, since I've gone ahead and reviewed your profile, I'm going to grant you a two-month trial. Thank you for interest. Please request an extension or the rights permanent at the proper venue a week or so before the perm is set to expire. Thank you for volunteering and please never be afraid to ask any questions! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try the tools tomorrow. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I recommend checking out WP:NPPSORT and getting familiar with tagging and marking as reviewed in an area you're already comfortable in. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor User:Ratnahastin with patrolling rights removed a concern of WP:OR that I added to an unpatrolled article, Political marriages in India. What was more concerning, is that they left a note on my talk page User talk:Aszx5000#August 2024 about my conduct for tagging the article directing me to review general Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with no comment on the OR issue at hand or any desire to discuss it. Felt like an odd thing to do for a new page patroller so I am bringing it here. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not the only person who reverted you.[1] Furthermore, WP:TAGGING is pretty clear that you need to explain your tagging which you never did. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
If there are recurring issues with a patroller, it might make sense to bring them up here, but right now what this looks like is an attempt to get some leverage in a content dispute that you've already brought up at WP:NORN and raised on the article talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I care nothing for leverage as I care nothing for the article, except that I was patrolling it, and it needs more eyes as some editors are vigorously defending it from being tagged with obvious issues.
My concern is that a another patroller does not seem to understand WP:OR/WP:SYNTH (which is even more apparent from their interaction with me on the talk page), but then templates their fellow patroller to gain their own leverage. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Aszx, I didn't mean for that to sound accusatory, just advisory. So to reiterate in a hopefully more helpful way: I think you should resolve this the same way you'd try to resolve any normal content dispute, on the article talk page. I'm not saying that you should ignore concerns about a patroller's ability to patrol properly, if you think they are serious. But I think this will work out better for both of you if you spend a bit more time trying to solve this together first. -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Great seeing we're doing another one. I sadly didn't end up being able to do much work earlier in the year, hope I'll be able to contribure more this time!★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Page Curation

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea for Page Curation to list "Uncategorized" under "Possible issues"? C F A 💬 21:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This already exists but the text is "No categories - This page does not belong to any categories." -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Really? I've never seen that. C F A 💬 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Safety check request

I've done about 30 reviews today for the September drive and plan to keep going; I'm relatively green to NPP. If anyone experienced had a moment, I was wondering if someone could take a quick look at my recent log and let me know if I'm on the right track with my patrolling. StewdioMACK (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at 4-5 of your reviews at random. They seemed fine to me. Continue reviewing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @MPGuy2824, appreciate it! StewdioMACK (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing :) (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Flowchart recommendation on draftifying

The flowchart at File:NPP flowchart.svg suggests draftifying any time there are fewer than two GNG-confirming sources in the article, you're not able to confirm likely notability with WP:BEFORE or SNG, and the notability is "borderline". This will apply to a lot of articles in the NPP feed, but draftification seems much rarer and more heavily discouraged. Does the flowchart still reflect current practice? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the flowchart fails to account for considerations that you may come across during the NPP feed, that are explained further at WP:DRAFTIFY, particularly the section "§ Reasons not to move an article to draftspace" (WP:DRAFTNO) that might address some of the concerns you have about draftifying an article. It is still very much an accepted practice; the current backlog drive has a method to account for it in points, see the column "Draftify" in § Leaderboard, that might even give you a sense for how often things are draftified. The category Category:Content moved from mainspace to draftspace also tracks the articles that have been moved, if you wanted to get a sense of what other editors are moving. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I see I've skimmed over the specifics of your question in regards to "fewer than two GNG-confirming sources". My answer is less of a direct answer to that question, you can see that Asilvering and Joe Roe discuss the specifics of it in more detail. But as Joe points to my linked resources here, I'll leave my response for the record. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that was ever accepted practice. – Joe (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Joe, would I be right to say what you mean is "I don't think draftifying articles of borderline notability was ever widely accepted"? I know you're skeptical of draftification for notability reasons in general, so maybe you mean "I don't think draftifying articles for notability reasons at all was ever widely accepted"? Not quite sure where to draw the boundaries on your "that", or if you might mean that draftification in general has always been somewhat disputed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
No I mean the specific situation described by thebiguglyalien above: that after a thorough search for sources (part of WP:BEFORE) has failed and you've confirmed that no SNG applies, you should still move an article to draftspace. More generally speaking there has never, to my knowledge, been an affirmative community consensus on using draftspace to deal with notability concerns. Nor is it part of any written policy or guideline. As a practice it sort of crept in through the cracks and as such is poorly justified and documented (as discussed above). I suspect (but don't know) that the wider community still expects issues of 'borderline' notability to be decided by consensus at AfD, not the judgement of an individual reviewer. – Joe (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you'll be gratified to hear that when Thebiguglyalien, who is new to NPP, brought this up in the NPP discord, the answer to "when do you draftify" was a resounding "basically never". It seems to me like we ought to be reworking this flowchart. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Refill tool

Hi, in case it hasn't already been mentioned, the Refill tool can now be found at https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/ regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

AI/LLM generated article

What is the process for articles that haven AI/LLM generated. This article Batik shirt is being reported at GTPZero as been 72%-92% generated. A tag was placed by an IP editor and he/she seems to be accurate. I was quite suprised that the editor recognised it. What is the process to deal with it. scope_creepTalk 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is for sections after the "Batik shirts as formal and informal attire" section header, i.e. inclusive. scope_creepTalk 19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

GPTZero is inaccurate and should not be trusted. However a human who is familiar with LLM can detect it reasonably well with pattern recognition. In general I'd recommend WP:TNT. It is an unreasonable amount of work for a reviewer to fix. Disclaimer: I have not looked at the article and am just speaking generally. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree. I think in general my approach would be to tag it, draftify the article, and let the authoring editor know why LLMs are not great for writing wikipedia articles. If they've already been warned about using AI it's probably better to go right to AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The particular article is full of unsourced puffery. And the lead is full of puffery which is not a summary of the article. I think that WP:TNT is the best option. If the creator is interested in having an article on it, I'd recommend recreating with a human written article with a couple of good GNG or near-gng sources. Short would be fine. Or perhaps the creator would be willing to take a chainsaw to it and reduce it to such in order to preserve it. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
This page was originally a redirect so I'm going to revert to that. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: The GTPZero is in the reviewer menu list. If that is not trusted, is there any automated tools that can be trusted? If not then is it assumed that we've got to build up expertise on it. I'm not sure if I would've recognised it without the IP editor. Its looked relatively well-written and structured. That editor tagged another article earlier and removed a section. He seemed to have expert eye. scope_creepTalk 09:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No automated tools can be fully trusted to ID AI text, unfortunately. -- asilvering (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
There's a post on phab by someone experienced in LLM stuff that said that GPTZero is really unreliable. Ever since then I've made sure to tell people that it's unreliable. What do you mean by "reviewer menu list"? Got a link? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae, isn't this link from your userscript? I thought I had that button because of User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/NPPLinks. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah you're right. I'd forgotten about that. Maybe I should remove it to discourage people from using it. Hmm. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I decided to remove the GPTZero link from my user script. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
This article was clearly written by AI, in my opinion. Detectors are usually reliable if they score above, say, 90%. Anything less than that is likely completely inaccurate. Then again, a human familiar with AI would also be able to detect the obvious cases. C F A 💬 13:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Play with chatgpt and some other llms for a while and the writing style will stand out to you like a beacon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, @Scope creep, I should also recommend WP:AICLEAN. Some helpful resources, lists of common AI phrases, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For me it was pretty obvious that it was either AI or copyvio. That kind of "professional-looking-puffery" (heavily laden with characterizations but professionally done) is the kind of thing that is common in articles elsewhere (which the AI would have tapped) but not in wiki-editor written articles. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've obviously behind and need to catch up. I had a mess about with chatgpt 3 and later 4 when it was released and used it in anger in my busines, but its been months since I looked at it. I've not had the time or the need. The advice on AICLEAN is good but I'm wondering how long its going to be valid for. I think I'll sign up for the project and get some mentoring after the sprint. It will be mixed articles where you have hand-written contents with section or paras that are generated that will be most difficult to spot, or even the odd bit here and there. I guess eventually it was stand out like a sore thumb. scope_creepTalk 21:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge discussions

Should we mark articles as reviewed if we begin a proposed merge discussion? I am inclined to say yes because proposed merges are more analogous to AfDs, which we mark as reviewed, than PRODs or CSDs, which we do not. Like AfD, they end with a determination of consensus regarding the article's notability, and once a proposed merge discussion is started, the merge templates cannot be removed until the discussion is closed out. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but AFD inherently enforces that a disposition is to be determined.....an editor physically can't un-AFD an article so it's certain that a determination will be made and so it gets unflagged. An editor can simply remove the proposed merged tag (even if they aren't supposed to) so IMHO it should not be marked as reviewed at that time in order to assure that some disposition will be determined. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
An editor can also simply remove an AfD tag even if they aren't supposed to. In both instances, the tag would be restored and the editor removing it would be warned. A proposed merge also always ends in a disposition; if the request is unopposed, the merge goes through. If it's opposed, a neutral closer will be requested at WP:CR or someone will close the discussion if it's listed at WP:PAM. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The difference is that the AFD is inherently still proceeding even if the nobody notices that the tag is removed. The merge process will end if nobody notices that the tag is removed and so then it will be "in" as a reviewed article. This is another way of saying the same thing that Novem Linguae said below. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Merge request templates are not one of the standard NPP outcomes. I think it is much more common for the reviewer to either 1) execute the merge immediately themselves, or 2) AFD it and ask for a merge in the nomination statement. Both of those methods are impossible to game, since executing the merge immediately involves a WP:BLAR that will throw the article back in the queue if reverted, and AFD has a bunch of safeguards to make sure the AFD concludes. Therefore I would not recommend marking an article that you add a {{Merge}} tag to as reviewed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I've added guidance regarding proposed mergers per what @Novem Linguae and @North8000 have said: If you create a proposed merger discussion instead of merging the article directly, do not mark the article as reviewed. Feel free to revert me if you think this needs more discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think quite such a categorical statement is warranted. For example, a reviewer might think the fine is but would be better merged, and thus both propose the merge and mark it as reviewed. And in general I think we should avoid encouraging people to leave things in the queue indefinitely (ideally, every article should only be reviewed once). I'll try and rephrase. – Joe (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That concern makes sense and I'm open to rephrasing. Perhaps something like: If you create a proposed merger discussion on the grounds that the article to be merged is not notableinstead of merging the article directly, do not mark the article as reviewed. If you determine that the article is notable but that merging is otherwise warranted, mark the article as reviewed. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I like your wording @Joe Roe, particularly since it instructs to start a discussion if the merge might be controversial, but I think if you want to capture the other part of your concerns, we should include some stuff about notability as I tried to do above. Open to rewording etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that is overly simplistic. NPP isn't checking something is notable or not; in my experience, merge discussions usually revolve around questions of due weight and needed context rather than notability. As Novem says, most NPP merges are done boldly (also supported by WP:MERGEPROP: Articles that are young or short [...] should be merged immediately) or via AfD (esp. for notability concerns), so I don't see this as an area where we need to give very specific guidance. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Another question: I just started a few merge discussions for recently reviewed pages. Should they be marked unreviewed or remain reviewed? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
If they were already marked as reviewed I think we can trust that the reviewer did their work before hitting the button, so it can be left as is. If you marked them as reviewed because you opened a merge discussion, you can either do a "full" review and leave them marked as reviewed or place them back in the queue. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
They were marked as reviewed by others, so I'll leave them be. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Gurukripa Career Institute

During a routine NPP task at Gurukripa Career Institute, several new users have repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag without addressing the issue. The page is entirely promotional, as it provides extremely detailed company information such as authorised capital, paid up capital etc., and users have even attempted to manipulate the List of institutions of higher education in Rajasthan by adding a new section for Coaching institutes which is not classified category at all. I could use some assistance, as I'm feeling overwhelmed by the number of IDs involved. Charlie (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some non-encyclopedic material. Given the current content, I wouldn't tag it with G11. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
@DreamRimmer thanks. Would it be a concern from an NPP reviewer's perspective if a reviewer who applied the CSD tag also tags it for AfD, or should they avoid doing so? Charlie (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No worries at all. If the CSD tag was removed or declined, the same reviewer can nominate it for AfD. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I have also reviewed/edited the page to remove some of the promotional content, eliminate repetition, resolve various citation issues, etc. Article appears to be the work of multiple SPAs - one account started on 4 September, and six more started on 8 September - now bludgeoning the AfD discussion. Paul W (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
At AFD now, and all accounts blocked. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Help with reviewing new page for female scientist Judith J. Warren

I created a bio article for Judith J. Warren, Nursing Infomatics pioneer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Judith_J._Warren_(Nursing_Informatics_Specialist) about a month ago and have not gotten much traction on it. I wanted to make sure I labeled it correctly and wanted to see if there was anything I could do to get attention for it for review/approval? Also, I want to know what edits need to be made as I am trying to improve.

Another question I have - can I publish articles without needing it to be approved? I have 31 edits via my account? If so, is there a different type of creation process? Meaning am I using the wrong type of sandbox? When I search for sandboxes, I am always coming up with various types. I like using the visual editor, but it seems that only articles for creation let's you and then you have to enter into this purgatory? Or is that for everyone? Logger67 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Logger67: Yes, you can publish articles without them needing to be approved, as long as they follow our standards. Rusty 🐈 03:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on Wikipedia’s gender gap! You may be interested in Women in Red as a community of editors making articles about women; there will be folks there happy to answer introductory editing questions. (WP:TEA is also a good place to ask.)
Also to actually answer one of your questions — it’s not necessary to use Articles for Creation just to use the visual editor. You can create an article directly in the main encyclopedia by searching the name of the missing article; above the search results will be a red link to create the missing page. If you want time to edit incrementally before publishing, there is a box at Wikipedia:Drafts that will let you create a draft in a non-AfC way; when it’s ready, you just need to “move” it to main space. (See Help:How to move a page.)
Creating articles directly comes with the responsibility of making sure they follow various Wikipedia guidelines, so you you may still want to use AfC for the extra double-checking until you’re really confident. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about histmerges

This may be the wrong place, but this question came up as part of a new page review and I'm sure someone here knows - I ran into First combat operations of FASH. which was an obvious recreation of content at First combat operations of FASH, a page previously protected due to edit warring. Another editor recently requested deletion of First combat operations of FASH to make way for a move, and I reverted that, hoping to preserve the edit history in case of any future SPI cases.

I requested a hist merge instead, but realized that usually those are used for cut and paste moves. In this case, should I have performed the cut and paste move first, or will the hist merge process also move the content? Or perhaps should I have BLAR'd that, as I can see others saying it's not suitable for an article, but I don't know the source matter well enough to say. ASUKITE 15:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asukite: If there are substantial edits to the duplicate page, you may want to merge the histories together. However, if the duplicate page does not differ from the source page, CSD A10 may apply. In this case I think First combat operations of FASH. (with period) can be safely deleted under A10, then First combat operations of FASH, now a redirect, is kept. I don't think a history merge is necessarily a good idea here, as the resulting page history will have edits to two different pages which might look weird. As long as the redirect page is not deleted, the history can always be viewed. Rusty 🐈 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I reverted my botched attempts at fixing this in favor of this solution, which seems better. I can't speak for the content of the article, but it seems similar enough to the article that was repeatedly BLAR'd. ASUKITE 16:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
"in case of any future SPI cases." Or current SPI cases. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK#20 August 2024 regarding the creator of First combat operations of FASH. (with .) being a sock of the creator of First combat operations of FASH (without .). SilverLocust 💬 16:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reliable way for non-admin patrollers to view articles deleted via AfD?

The tag {{db-g4}} says "is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." In previous cases where I have been unable to assess how "substantially identical" the page is (because it's since been deleted) I've had to take to inferring from the arguments in the AfD and see if the now public version "addresses" those concerns. Previously, I've found that if I still had those concerns, I simply tagged and would assume the patrolling admin would make the call on the first condition of the tag. However, an editor has previously gotten quite upset with this method, which is fair, it wasn't "substantially identical". My question is, is there a better way to do this type of patrolling? Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

No, only admins can see deleted content. It's ok to take a stab in the dark with g4 though. If you have a lot of declined G4s, nobody will hold it against you. We are working on a tool to help with this in PageTriage, but it is not ready yet. phab:T327955Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
For now a non-admin could also compare the size of the page before deletion via the metadata of deleted revisions to see if it's likely identical. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=deletedrevisions&drvprop=user%7Ctimestamp%7Ctags%7Csize&drvlimit=max&formatversion=2&titles=Example+article. Just change the last part of the url, &titles=, to be for the appropriate title. (Got this from User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link.) SilverLocust 💬 17:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
If you have a lot of declined G4s, nobody will hold it against you. Sorry, looks like I was wrong about this. It was held against the candidate in the RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade#Oppose. Although ideally I don't think it should be. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I also find that reasoning bizarre, and I'm the one who declined the specifically mentioned G4 in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
By "an editor", I assume you mean "the editor who wrote the page I CSD tagged"? As Novem said, you're in the clear, so my advice for dealing with this would be to apologize and reassure them that an admin won't delete the article if it isn't substantially identical, so they don't have anything to worry about. If you want a script: "Sorry about that! I tagged the article for attention because I noticed that a page at this title had already been deleted before. Since I'm not an admin, I can't see the version that was deleted, so I can't be sure whether the new article is substantially identical or not. I'm supposed to tag articles for deletion in this case and let the admins sort it out. Don't worry, an admin will review the deletion tag and decline it without deleting your article if it is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!" -- asilvering (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
You may be able to see a copy of a deleted page at the Internet Archive. --John B123 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: spent a lot of time typing up their approach to this and I think that it's incredibly useful advice that should have a wider audience. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of translation copyvios, allow me to plug CFA's handy AttributeTranslation script, which helps with the cleanup work and warns the page creator on their talk page when used. Vanderwaalforces also made a good-looking script in the section you mention to help spot those errors in the first place. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
User:Vanderwaalforces/checkTranslationAttribution.jsNovem Linguae (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've installed it. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If I could make a suggestion, a "dismiss" button after it pops up would be great. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss Done! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I brought this up last drive but now's a good time to bring it up again. Non-attributed translations are actually very common. And since they aren't caught by tools like CopyPatrol, NPP is essentially the only defence against them. What I do for articles that could have been plausibly translated (e.g. about a topic from a non-English-speaking country) is: check Google for corresponding articles, and if there aren't any, check Wikidata's entry (at the bottom in the "Wikipedia" box). If there are corresponding articles, I use the Google Translate extension's "translate page" feature to compare the articles. Most editors, especially newish ones, are simply unaware of the attribution requirement when translating (e.g. see this from a few days ago), so it's important to leave them a note. C F A 💬 21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
So for clarification, english pages created with text from translation tools are okay as long as there's appropriate attribution? JW as I came across this page Conventico Caves and noticed it has a corresponding page es:Cuevas_del_Conventico and the text for the english article matches the google translate version. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It should not match Google translate because if an editor uses machine translation they must check and edit the output , otherwise it is worse than just having the foreign language article (which users can translate with the same automated tools). I created a template, uw-mt, to remind about expectations around translation.. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know about that template - thanks for making it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
They shouldn't be exact copies (but you will be able to see the similar structure, just with different words/slightly different phrasing), because, as buidhe said above, machine translations should never be copy/pasted in without further editing. In this case it is clearly an exact copy of Google Translate, so what I'd do is tag it with {{rough translation}} after adding appropriate attribution. C F A 💬 20:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
got it, thanks CFA and buidhe! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I can usually figure out if it's a translation based on intuition, but most editors are not that lucky. I don't have any tips because I just pick up on various clues about the style of English prose, article organization, reference formatting etc. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's exciting to get feedback very quickly, but having an article draftified or even worse deleted could be minimized if we replaced WP:NPPHOUR with WP:NPPDAY (24 hours). We have so many articles in the backlog, and retain common sense exceptions. With 10,000 articles in backlog and 13,000 redirects, do we need the WP:NPPHOUR? I never noticed this, because I tend to review older articles first anyways. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I would support this. I can attest that I found getting tagged by NPP within even a few hours of creation to be annoying and unhelpful, when I was starting out. Since articles that haven't been patrolled aren't search indexed, leaving articles for a day to give their creators time to actually finish their work seems harmless to me. Is there anything critical I'm missing here? -- asilvering (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. My only run-in was on an article that two minutes old which was draftified 1 minute before I put the references in so I don't have much experience. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a kind way to address new editors and new articles, I think it's a good idea @Shushugah. When I send an article to draft I try to leave a note offering to help because I know that feeling can be really demoralizing. Maybe we could create a tag either on the article or it's talk space with a reminder that new pages are eligible to be sent to draft after 24 hours? That way casual NPP folk don't accidentally send something to draft too soon and folk who are working on articles aren't confused when they come back a few days latter and find the article they've started work on is now in draft space. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the tag is a good idea - imo, that would mean giving more work to NPP, not less, and giving more anxiety to new editors, not less. If we're going to draftify, we should just do it. -- asilvering (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that's fair, I was just trying to find a way to keep people informed but now that I'm a little more awake I guess we already notify editors when we make the move. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems like this could put a lot of restrictions on NPP front of queue reviewers, and lead to drama as some of the 800 NPPers don't get the memo about the minimum wait time being increased to 24x as long. Wouldn't it be better if we encouraged folks that need more than an hour to use {{Under construction}} tags instead? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae right now, the queue warns NPPers about the one-hour window. We could simply change it to warn editors about a 24-hour (or any number of hours) window instead. Any fix that requires new editors to use tags they probably don't even know exist isn't going to work very well. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned below (since my comment got made into its own section), I do oppose an additional/extended restriction on the front of the queue. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I think switching to waiting until 24 hours would lead to more WP:BITEY behaviour, in the form of articles being sent to WP:AFD instead of giving newer users more space and allowing them to work on things in draft space. There's a really strange view of draft space by some people that I think they need to shake off. Draft space is optional, but it's a very useful place to invite newer users to work on something more casually, not forcing them to rush into learning how Wikipedia works in under a week to save what they've worked on. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Wait, why would it mean more articles at AfD? -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
@Asilvering: It's a presumption of mine not backed up by actual data at this point in time. My belief is draftifications are more likely early on, but if a page has been up for a day or so, I believe it's more likely to get sent to AfD as opposed to draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed that at AfD when people try to advocate for moving articles to draft space you'll get folks coming out of the woodwork to claim that sending articles to draft is just around about deletion. I don't even bother trying to advocate moving articles at AfD to draft so I can work on them later because of it. When I send an article for draft as part of NPP I try to offer to help the new editor with their article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I at least understand, but disagree, with folks who are very against draftifications, I just don't get it though when people have that point of view @Dr vulpes. It's a place to work on things so they're not outright deleted. The alternative at AfD is delete over draftification in most cases, so why not at least give peopel a chance, you know? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Draftification is a non-solution to the much wider problem, at least in my opinion. With that stated, I haven't draftified any article because I see no need for it. I also believe that WP:NPPHOUR should remain, as waiting 24 hours to review articles would only add to the already excessive backlog. And to end my comment, I'd like to ask someone to send me a link to the NPP discord. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu. You can also find the link at the top of this talk page, in one of the banners. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Why would it add to the backlog? It wouldn't impact the number of reviews we're doing, it would just impact what part of the queue we looked at. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Speaking anecdotally, about 50% of editors like draftspace/draftification and think it is a safe place for new users to incubate their articles until they reach a publishable standard, and about 50% of editors think that draftspace/draftification is a WP:BITEy backdoor to deletion that is inferior to the AFD process, with AFD at least being honest and getting the new user an answer in about a week instead of lingering for months.
At the end of the day, one side believes "draftspace is less bitey than AFD" and the other side believes "draftspace is more bitey than AFD", and I think it is difficult to convince a person who believes one of these things to change to the opposite. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I have to disagree that draftspace is a safe place for beginners to nurture their articles until they are ready for publication. If there's one thing AFC has taught us, it's that, despite having the luxury of editing in draftspace, beginners frequently produce articles that fall outside of the expected quality of a standard Wikipedia article. Understandably, nearly every AFC nomination is turned down, and let's not even discuss how long an article must wait to be reviewed there. To put it another way, draftification won't prevent an article from being deleted. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm trying to say. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Both DRAFT and AfD are scary places for new editors, but either way this proposal won't address that. It merely avoids proposing any kind of interaction for at least 24 hours, saving new editors and reviewers alike avoidable headaches. Even as an experienced editor, I do not think my edits within an hour are the best. I need to reflect/think it over and find novel solutions. Let's let the new editors get a water-break before throwing them into the exciting world of high stakes collaboration. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Understandably, nearly every AFC nomination is turned down... – That's just not true. I ran a quick quarry query for the month-to-date numbers at AfC.
  • Accepts: 801
  • Declines: 2,893
  • Rejects: 118
Now, I know that this query has flaws, in that it doesn't count articles that have been deleted (which would increase the decline count), but I think you might have an improper view of AfC and draft space @Wolverine XI. To put it another way, draftification won't prevent an article from being deleted. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm trying to say. – I don't think we're trying to say it will, but I do think it often gives some articles a better chance than they'd have otherwise. I just strongly believe it's less bitey than sending an article to AfD, especially when we (at least I try to) stress that draft space is optional. If we send something to AfD and it gets deleted you're telling someone their work needs to be deleted, draft space tells them they can do more, and won't be losing what they work on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll note also that articles can get declined multiple times, but can only be accepted or rejected once. The data will look heavier tilted towards declines as a result. -- asilvering (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
My problem with draftification is that it is used by some users as a "doesn't meet my standards" button that doesn't require the oversight or due-diligence (WP:BEFORE) standards that an AfD requires. This results in articles being moved that don't meet criteria for deletion. Pairing it with an obscure to newcomers process and an automatic timed deletion, it's a de-facto delete button, that some editors blanketly deploy on hundreds of articles.
Also, to respond to other comments above, AfC articles being denied despite the article not meeting AfD standards is also a problem. I approve like 50% of AfC articles I look at. They might be non-optimal sometimes but again, the standard is not whether or not I like it. People have to stop applying their more stringent standards for both these processes. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 11:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I approve like 50% of AfC articles I look at. - That has not been my experience so far, anecdotally for me, the number of rejects/decline vastly outnumber the accepts even tho I tend to judge articles purely on the grounds of notability. Sohom (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
@Acebulf: While I disagree with you about a "de-facto deletion button", as I do process a lot of G13 deletions (drafts not edits for 6 months), I do recognize that it might be confusing for newer editors. I think what might be more confusing is for their work to be nominated for deletion early on instead of being told to put some extra work in to make it better, but I understand not everyone feels the same way.
As for the AfC approvals you speak of, how many of those were draftified and re-submitted without changes? The way forward is to work on when is best to draftify, not to not consider it as a viable option. If you have interest in reviewing items that have been draftified, I encourage you to look at User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch. I use that page to find and revert draftifications of pages that were older than 90 days when draftified. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
It is, to a certain extent. If a topic isn't notable, no amount of editing is going to fix that. By draftifying for notability, we're implying to the creator that it could become an article with a bit more work. Unless it is an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON where the topic is likely to become notable in the next six months, draftifying really is just a workaround to deletion (whether it's through G13 or back in mainspace at AfD). So if a topic isn't notable, take it to AfD and delete it. Don't draftify it. We shouldn't be wasting editors' time by encouraging them to work on drafts about non-notable topics. But I recognize this a controversial position among reviewers. C F A 💬 00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I know there are varying philosophies as to purpose of draftification, which is one root issue. I personally believe it should be used, when an article IS notable (would survive AFD) but is in a horrid state in terms of problematic sourcing, promo language and would benefit from improvement before getting slashed down to a stub were it placed in mainspace. Sometimes a stub in mainspace is preferable (especially if NONE of the sourcing was salvageable) but if decent sourcing was placed there but would benefit from improved prose/templates, then draft can be a calmer space to work on that.
The tension boils down to differing philosophies, but also laziness. AFD participants don't do the full BEFORE search sometimes, DRAFT'ers judge an article by its current form, without fully considering what might happen at AFD or not, and some people like to slap tags without regarding whether it bites new editors, and helps or not. But none of us are perfect, and every reviewer is different, so while we can try to standardize conventions, it will always be a challenge. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a false dichotomy. The main alternative to draftspace isn't AfD (because most reviewers use draftify for articles that are somehow lacking but not deletion candidates), it's incrementally improving the article in mainspace as we have done for the last twenty years without any problems. People criticise draftification as a backdoor for deletion because it can (i.e. not will) via G13 lead to an article being deleted for reasons that aren't listed in WP:DELREASON, whereas that would never happen in mainspace because the deletion processes, unlike draftification, are well-defined and subject to regular oversight.
Where the draftify vs. AfD argument comes up is in the specific (and dubious) case of articles draftified for notability concerns, and IMO basically comes down to people who see notability as a subjective quality decided by a consensus of editors vs. an objective quality determinable by a single reviewer. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
What evidence do we have that this would actually help creators? My quick look at 50 articles created 24+ hours ago suggests very few are edited in a way that this proposed change would help after an initial burst of activity. Perhaps a better rule would be at least 1 hour since the most recent substantive edit (e.g. excluding things like the people who through and do categories or other gnoming type work). So this rule feels like it would make life harder for NPP without actually helping anyone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps a better rule would be at least 1 hour since the most recent substantive edit Don't we already have that in Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review: there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour since the last constructive edit) John B123 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
You're right, we do. I forgot the specifics of the current prohibition. So I continue to wonder how much benefit we would reap from a longer waiting time based at least on the small data sample I looked at. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
In my experience most editors see the article as 'finished' after the initial activity, but some intent to carry on improving the article. Experienced editors may use the {{In creation}} or {{under construction}} templates in this situation but newer editors probably don't know of the existence of these templates. Extending to 24 hours won't make a difference in most cases but would in cases when the editor intends incubating the article. The outside world frequently has an influence on time available for editing here so a 1 hour gap in editing doesn't mean they don't intend to edit the article further. I would suggest that the 24 hours only applies to AfD, draftification or redirecting the article. Tagging the article after an hour may serve as a pointer to the creator where the shortcomings are and can try and resolve them before the 24 hours when more drastic action may be taken. Many will probably ignore the tag but hopefully some will make the required improvements. I would also suggest the 24 hours starts from the last edit not from the article creation time. John B123 (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't doubt that this sometimes happens. But I still wonder at what frequency. Creating a large exception to cover rare edge cases doesnt strike me as wise. If it's not rare that's a whole different situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this would make harder about NPP, can you explain? -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
If the right answer is draftification this will mean that multiple NPP will all have to spend time reaching that conclusion because these are articles at the front of the queue. This means either nothing is likely not happen and thus we're adding to the queue and possibly allowing an article that does not meet required standards to get indexed or we're encouraging outright deletion processes where before we'd be allowing something else to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Hm, what I was thinking of was just changing the "this is too close to the front of the queue, leave it" boundary to be longer than 1 hour. Right now, anything created less than an hour ago has an orange outline on the timestamp in the new pages feed and a warning not to tag it. So I wouldn't expect it to add to NPP workload in any way, since the idea is that those pages would all be ignored until they crossed the line anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You'd have to scroll through substantially more articles to start at ones that are 24 hours old rather than 1 hour. And for how much benefit? I think I'm still the only one who has tried to collect any data about how much people already are working on articles in the >1 hour <24 hour period and what I did was far too limited to have value. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I do think increasing it a little more (maybe to 2 hours) would be helpful and cause minimal new problems. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If we're going to change the time limit I'd also like to do it based on empirical data on how long creators usually spend on new articles. Anecdotally, I think it's rare that people spend more than 2-3 hours on it after creation, so if a higher limit is needed something in the order of six hours sounds more reasonable.
On the other hand, I've not felt that there is a problem with the current hour (it wasn't so long ago we raised it from 15 minutes) and would be interested to hear more about what motivated this proposal. I know there has been some discussion of NPPHOUR in the current RfA, but I think that's more about whether it should be seen as a hard limit or a rule of thumb. The current instructions (I hope) make it clear that the spirit of the rule is more important, because we start by saying take care not to alienate article creators (especially new editors) by patrolling them while they are still in progress and only after that suggest one hour as a minimum grace period. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I recall when we changed it from 15 minutes to an hour, and I do think it led to a significant reduction in perceived biteyness and reverted draftifications. I feel the thing we'd need to hammer home more is that NPPHOUR should be referring to an hour from the last edit, not an hour from creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


OK, having been on the receiving end, here's what bitey looks like, having been on the receiving end myself. About 2 years ago (having I'd guess a few thousand NPP reviews under my belt at the time) . I started an article (sort of a technical gnomeish one, needed to internal-link from a FA rescue article I was working on). Clearly met notability and I already had the references lined up and was going to put them in within a few minutes of starting the article, but a couple minutes after starting the article it was draftified (by an experienced wikipedian, but not a NPP reviewer regular) and here was the message and exchange:

An article you recently created, xxxxxxx is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (by XX)
XX The article is only five minutes old. I have many references and am adding them, albeit interrupted by this post.  :-) You really need to look closer before you do these things.  :-) North8000 (talk)
That's what draft space and user space are for. (Article space is for articles, not for half-formed articles. XX

Aside from the obvious, the message implied that AFC review is the only way I could put it back. So a big part of bitey is the wording. I'd hate to see what this atmosphere would do to a new editor. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See and that's the problem, not the usage of draft space itself. NPPHOUR would have been crucial there and it's been a good thing that we upped it from 15 minutes to an hour. Do you think it would have been worse if your article was nominated for deletion instead of moved to draft space? Fwiw, that "experienced editor" clearly misunderstood that articles can be worked on in main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, for me, either would not be bad because I knew the situation and how it would end up. And I've had the thickest skin training (NPP) available on Wikipedia. For a newbie, I'm guessing that AFD would have been rougher. BTW I just realized that it is worth mentioning this was not a NPP review, just someone who is active at doing this type of thing. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I did catch that you mentioned it wasn't an NPP reviewer. I've just been trying to assert the point that draftification (work on it) is less bitey than AfD (delete it) in my opinion, so I wanted to see what you thought since you had a negative experience early on. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh, you are absolutely right. I agree. I was already wiki-old (13 years in Wikipedia) at the time. Just clarifying, they have the NPP tool, but I don't think that they do NPP reviews and this wasn't one. I agree think that draft space is a good thing, my main point was the wording. Especially because we need it to be the norm that editors find and include GNG sources for GNG-dependent articles. BTW I had two articles taken to AFD when I was a newbie. One (a fork) should not have been made and was AFD'd by someone who gave me wise and friendly advice. The other was by someone who ended up getting reigned in later on for hounder/stalker stuff. So I did have that experience / a baptism by fire and for better or for worse and learned immensely from both. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
My suggested updated wording would be something like When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or directly move it to mainspace yourself if you have experience. I removed modifier words like "please" which are confusing for non-native speakers and added alternate path. This would also reduce someone's experience publishing to mainspace, NPP draftifies them, submit review at AfC. Only thing missing is a suggestion for AfD review on top ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Shushugah I've reverted your split and movement of the comments North8000 and I made under this. I don't appreciate the comments being moved to a place that makes it appear as though I'm responding to a completely different comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
As a note, the current templated message from the MoveToDraft script says, "When the article is ready for publication, please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button at the top of the page OR move the page back". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I think this wording is clearer that what Shug wrote but I agree that we can remove the "please". -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Some considerations

I would urge the discussion above to focus on whether WP:NPPDAY (24 hours) rule is a step forward or backwards from status quo. There's a dearth of data, which admittedly hampers our collective ability to make a truly informed decision. How common is draftification of an article an hour after it was last edited after an hour? After 24 hours?

There are certainly many things to improve in NPP, but this discussion here is difficult to follow or find consensus because it is so sprawled out and echoing longer standing and highly complex interwiki-departmental conflicting philosophies regarding the value of NPP, Draftification, AfC and AfD. These different areas of Wikipedia have differing cultures. My initial proposal cannot not address those comprehensively. But reducing the amount of time navigating between all of these can be a net saving for reviewers and editors alike, while recognizing they're all vital to the project and also improve the articles in the end whether it is more solo time to edit, feedback and or collaborative contributions.

Regarding whether the 24 hour rule would impede page patrol feed, the NPP feed should be adapted to hide/segment recently created articles that were last edited less than 1-or-24 hours to a different feed, the same way that auto-patrolled articles are labeled separately. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing I'm curious about is whether that would apply to feedback on articles, such as adding maintenance tags. I often try to refrain from adding maintenance tags within the one-hour editing space so editors don't feel like they're being attacked while actively working on an article. However, if they create an article, then it's tagged the next day, would they be more or less likely to address those concerns?
Additionally, I'm curious if this would have any impact on particularly bad articles (e.g., spam, attack) that may not be flagged by the system. If NPPers are encouraged not to look at articles within 24 hours of the last edit, could we end up with these pages living on Wikipedia longer? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we have basically no consensus for the 24 hours thing at all, such that it's probably not worth wondering what the difference would be (aside from our own curiosity, I guess). But I would be curious to know if other NPPers thought it might be a good idea to move the "one-hour editing space" to 2 or 3 hours. I've certainly seen a bunch of AfC submissions where the article creator was still working on it two hours later, so I'd support making it "NPP2HR", but I assume I've got a wonky sample - ie, that I'm mostly only seeing those folks, given that I'm noticing them from the AfC side. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
If there are just one or two editors who feel less attacked when we wait a little longer (whether 1,2 or 24 hours), that's already a net win for me. The potential downside is leaving questionable content online for a negligible time period. Unless it is BLP violations, CSD eligible (that exception/common sense remains anyways) or other exceptional content that can be immediately removed, problematic content can/does stay up longer. Even with AfD nomination, the content remains for at least 7 days minimum. For people specifically looking for spammy/first hour articles, they should be able to disable the filter still, i.e admins with CSD experience. Comment on @GTrang's ticket T375330.
  • In terms of behaviour, my hunch is a lazy/minimalist reviewer slapping maintenance tags without any other feedback is not as helpful as someone who makes ONE constructive edit/qualitative feedback, along with some maintenance, but there's no easy way to enforce that.
  • I noticed in NPP software, if I want to send a message I need to send that first, before marking as reviewed. There is no way to do both simultaneously. Created a Phabricator ticket T375336 for that.
~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@Shushugah: See phab:T375330. GTrang (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)