This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

So, I review an article such as Bharosa (TV series) and find the plot section is copypasted from one source and the rest of the article from another. I think it should be speedily deleted, but the curation toolset only allows me to give one copyvio-related url, and there is nowhere to make a comment either. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I use Twinkle to CSD tag, which allows multiple URLs. The fact that page curation doesn't is a major oversight (it is probably on the list of requested features that they keep ignoring). If using page curation just type in the field <URL#1 and URL#2>, (i.e. just put SPACEandSPACE between the URLs) which also works fine (just tested that). Cheers and thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 11:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Already deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, perhaps you could check and see if it's on the list. If it's not, perhaps you could add it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try that next time. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation is largely copy-pasted, I think, from EEC documents here which I imagine are in the public domain. It is not really a suitable article for Wikipedia in its present form. What would be the best way forward here? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really has to be in the public domain. From here it says Reuse is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and that individual sections may have their own copyright notice. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

As of 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC), the backlog is around 9600. I believe the massive drop was a result of new NPRs that came onboard recently. Insertcleverphrasehere has a page in his userspace with the stats (I couldnt find it). That being said, I still believe if we get only 100 more active reviewers, then the backlog will never cross 5k, and will remain under 2000, or even 1000. At this particular situation, if we dont get new NPRs, then we will have to maintain streak to bring backlog below 2000.

But I believe we should be a little more vocal/promotional about NPR. Once the backlog is stable under 1000, and we have more than 1000 reviewers, then soon it will be just like PCR, the backlog will never cross 500 pages per day. That is based on the loose assumption that there are 500 pages created per day. So at a random given moment, there would be like 250-300 pages in the queue.

• The pd͡zoint of all this is: just get some more of good editors to join NPR.
  • As for WMF's "the current system is not sustainable" claim: "the current system" is a vague, and relative term. Once we have 1500 reviewers, the system will become sustainable. As their statement was largely based on the fact of our "big guns" like PRhese, and Boleyn; they said if one of the big guns stopped, the system will collapse.
    • But if we have a less than 5000 backlog, and at least 200 reviewers who review around 100 pages per month (ie ~20,000 pages per month in total), then the system will be good to go for a very long time, making the guys at Houston very very happy.
• Also, from some previous (and archived) conversations, a third/uninvolved person gets the impression that there is a lot of work to do, and that reviewers are "obliged" to do it. I think this another thing putting them away from becoming NPR other than very complex/scary looking tutorial page. We need to change our tone here while we talk, and we also need to make the tutorial look "not so complicated". —usernamekiran (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions is much simpler than the NPP tutorial (and I don't think the NPP process is that much more complicated) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think AfC and NPR processes are almost the same. The only difference is reviewing includes an article that is already in the article-space. And instead of "declining", the article is either moved to another space, or nominated for deletion. Rest of the gnoming remains the same. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Let's not forget that AfC is a 'project' and its use by article creators is optional. OTOH, NPR is an essential core function - one which by extension is part of the Media Wiki software. It's the only firewall against unwanted articles. The tutorial appears to be complex to new users because if it's going to be done properly, it does require a near admin knowledge of policies and guidelines, plus of deletion which is not required for AfC - and a lot of reviewers still get things wrong. 90/500 is the minimum threshold for entry to the user group, but it is not a measure of the experience required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC

Ehh, I already knew most of the tutorial (and had done many reviews in AfC etc) and it still put me off. Needs to organized better I think - the AfC tutorial also explains, but is more clear about a 4-step process. There isn't a clear process delineated in the NPP tutorial, which makes it a lot more confusing. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Something Primefac and I have been discussing offline is that we need a better way to measure the backlogs than numbers of articles or drafts. In the case of NPP, I’d be fine with 100,000 unpatrolled pages so long as we consistently had none older than 90 days. If he had none older than 90 days, I’d say we were backlog free. For AfC I forget what time period counts as very old, but there aren’t that many drafts there. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. Very old is more than one month. Because of the drop in pages coming in, it could very well be dropping number of backlog but increasing length of backlog in terms of time (don't think so though). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 14:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Or the opposite: increasing number of pages, while decreasing median age. That is possible too at some point. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• There isn't a clear process delineated in the NPP tutorial, because there isn't one. The tutorial is a text book of what the process is all about and what needs to be known to correctly review pages. It was never intended to be a 'step-by-step' guide, at least not when Scottywong and I rewrote it some years ago, and Fuhghettaboutit significantly updated it when we rolled out the New Page Reviewer user group. TonyBallioni then updated it to make it more apt for authorised reviewers. A lot of other editors have since chimed in with excellent copyediting and formatting. It actually takes only 29 minutes and 49 seconds to read thoroughly; it's not a lot of time to invest, and anyone who does not grasp those essentials should not, IMO, be attempting to review new pages. A competent reviewer already has sufficient experience and knows intuitively what to look for and what to do about it, in much the same way that serious RfA candidates (who these days are usually 'promoted') already have the required knowledge for the job. What we do have now, however, is a dynamic support system provided by various highly motivated reviewers here, which never existed for NPP until the NPR right was rolled out barely 12 months ago - the backlog is finally going down, we have ACTRIAL, and I call all that 'progress'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The advantage of the tutorial as we have it is that it is a useful reference point for virtually any question that arises. I will happily grant the flag to any experienced editor who I can see through their article and project space contributions has a basic sense of what Wikipedia's standards are. I don't need to see that they've read the tutorial because it is obvious through their contributions that they get our policies and procedures. For newer users or users who don't have that much variety in their contributions, I will sometimes ask to see if they have read the tutorial and ask a followup question based on it. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Galobtte, Tony, and Kudpung. But only partially. It is a fact that an editor requires thorough knowledge of policies. Then why to (re)explain them in tutorial? I think a lot of content from the tutorial can be removed that way. Like COI: it begins with what it is, then it includes how to identify, how to respond, and a lot of stuff. I think we should create a primary tutorial (at the current location), which should be more like a "briefing". A new part of the tutorial (a new page) should be created with details of everything. The sections of this detailed "text-book style" tutorial then can be linked within the brief tutorial. Like, there should be only one para/section regarding COI in primary tutorial. It should have links to the sections of detailed tutorial eg "how to identify COI", and so on. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can start working on these two pages (for example/as a sample) in my userspace around 12 Jan I think. Unfortunately, till then I will be very busy IRL. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@ usernamekiran The invitee stats page you were looking for is here: User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPP, As for Galobtter saying that there is no step by step process, That's why I made the Article Review Flowchart; it is literally a step by step guide. Its not my fault it is complicated, there are a lot of moving pieces to patrolling new pages. I have had a lot of feedback from users that I have invited recently that the flowchart has helped them immensely. Personally, I think that the system is relatively stable at the moment, if barely. With the addition of 65 additional reviewers reviewing 3000+ articles/redirects a month, the backlog has never looked better. If the backlog starts going up again, then I will work a bit further down the WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (I onlt did the top 1000) and get even more reviewers. Personally I'm not one to smash my head against a brick wall, although the extremely indurated skulls of the top reviewers around here are very admirable. To reduce the backlog it is far more efficient in long term to simply ask for help from the most experienced wikipedians, some of which will enjoy working the New Page Feed if informed of the issue and need for help. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ehh, AfC also has a flowchart, yet is has a reasonable guide too. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also, something no one has mentioned is the immense reduction of unreviewed redirects. There used to be 20000 of them as well, and now there are only about 8000. We hardly talk about redirects, but it is a big part of NPP, and some people have been doing a ton of work in the background on this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As a recent recruit to NPR, I have found the tutorial very helpful. The point I would like to make about it is that it explains in great detail how to recognise a CoI and paid advertising, but is less clear about what to do when you have detected them. Some articles are very promotional and can be proposed for speedy deletion, others are about obviously non-notable people and can go to AfD, but it is the middle ground that is difficult, the dubiously notable individuals and the somewhat promotional BLPs, most of which seem to have been created by single purpose editors with no disclosed CoI. I read the link to Orangemoody above, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that these one-purpose accounts were reincarnations of real-life, experienced editors making themselves some money. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have also found the flowchart very useful; thanks Insertcleverphrasehere! And the tutorial serves as a very handy reference when I come upon a new situation. - On that note, maybe I can ask that here: should one mark articles that are being proposed for deletion (through whichever channel - speedy/prod/AfD) as reviewed? I have seen both: deletion candidates left in the queue, and articles I nominated subsequently marked as reviewed by others. Couldn't find a clear answer in the material. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There was some discussion a couple months ago about this and I think the consensus was generally yes, you should mark it as reviewed and keep track of it via CSD/PROD logs. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 11:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see someone else asking a question which puzzles me too. And if the answer is "Don't mark as reviewed if proposing for deletion" (as the flowchart suggests), then how does that fit in with statistics about review counts? Pam D 10:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Tagging a page for one of the deletion processes marks the page automatically as 'reviewed' to avoid it being reviewed again, but it does not review it in the sense that it will be free to be indexed by Google; the deletion template takes care of that with its built-in 'NO INDEX' script. At least that's what 's suposed to happen as discussused with the devs last year while we were setting up the New Page Reviewer group. In short, the idea is to tag for deletion, and do nothing else (if you have selected 'add all pages I edit to my watchlist' in your preferences, you should see if a PROD or CSD has been removed, then you can do something about it). However, other maintenance tags that do not involve deletion will release the article to search engines on clicking the green 'Mark as reviewed' button.

Those grey area articles are generally due to a lack of reviewer experience, but intuitive patrolling will come with time - trust me, I've done a lot of it and wrote the 'book'. Never hesitate to ask here for help and bear in mind that if you pass on an article, there's no harm done, someone else will patrol it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. If the intent was to have pages that are tagged for deletion to be marked as reviewed as well and removed from the queue, I don't think that's working - see e.g. currently Aemila Sadhukhan; BLPprodded but still in queue. Following the aims just stated, I would at the moment just skip such articles marked with the bin icon, and leave my own deletion nominations sitting there as well w/o clicking the checkmark? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 11:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The bin icon is there for two very good reasons: 1). So that any admins who are reviewing (such as me) can immediately delete the offending article, and 2). for anyone who wants to, to check that the reviwer has not made a mistake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Elmidae It is because most people CSD/PROD tag with Twinkle, which does not mark as reviewed automatically. If using twinkle you should also tick the article as reviewed as a separate action. If using Page curation, it will do it automatically. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 12:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure twinkle marks reviewed when AfDing; maybe not for PROD's and CSD's. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, that would explain it :) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I should also have added: If you tag an article with non-deletion tags but still feel you'd like a second set of eyes on it, simply click 'unreviewed'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Most people? Stats please - unless you are talking about those who are not allowed access to Curation. When Page Curation/New Pages Feed were being designed in early 2012, it was conceived not with the anticipation that it would one day be used by a special group of users, but that it would be a more complete NPP solution than the general purpose Twinkle - which nevertheless is one of the en.Wiki's most important tools albeit a community development, and combines all the standard warning and blocking scripts. It was genuinely anticipated that patrollers (at the time still anyone and his dog) would find it, as a dedicated tool, more user friendly and presenting a lot more useful 'at-a-glance' meta info in the feed. It was a sad day after the cost of development that the WMF handed us what turned out to be an incomplete tool set (see Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements) and refused to spend further time on it. IMO it is nevertheless vastly superior to Twinkle and I would no more consider going back to using Twinkle for NPP than going back to using a PC after using Mac for 28 years. We should be considering stepping up the pressure on the WMF to complete those requests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, maybe it isn't 'most' but based on the numbers that show up in the feed it seems like there are a fair few (also anyone who tags for CSD/PROD/AfD who is not a patroller). Personally I use Twinkle for CSD/PROD because the CSD and PROD logs that page curation generates are not editable pages where I can leave notes next to entries. I am also super disappointed with the WMF for the seeming abandonment of the page curation toolset. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well we all know that the WMF isn't the most reliable or responsive organisation. The problem is that for some bizarre reason they made Page Curation a hard-coded Mediawiki feature and not a Javascript gadget like Twinkle. Otherwise, the community might have reasonably been able to step in when the WMF inevitably abandoned it. I think the best we can hope for at this point that someone will be willing to port Page Curation to a Javascript gadget (or perhaps just add the functionality to Twinkle) so that it can be maintained without the WMF as a bottleneck. –  Joe ( talk) 20:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The WMF code writers will always continue to develop what they want with little regard to IxD which is an issue with developers of even some of the most expensive software on the market. There is no department in the WMF that really examines what the stakeholders (i.e. editors and readers) actually want. Later additions to the WMF's staff have agreed with that writing it as a community non-accessible MediaWiki extension was an error, but their original, and understandable intention was for it to become a Wiki-wide tool. One WMF developer even stated recently on Phab that it needs a complete rewrite - notwithstanding the fact that its GUI is otherwise excellent, barring those urgently needed enhancements in the suggestions page which Noyster created and I largely populated. The problem is that at this stage we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, and the tool is far too complex to expect unpaid IT experts from within the community to do it for nothing. There really needs to be a Community-WMF team that is responsible not only for Curation, but for collaborative development on all Wiki software (and Phab is not that venue or anything like it). ACTRIAL was a major breakthrough after 5 years of wrangling and heavy pressure from the community, so let's keep our fingers crossed for 2018. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlog now below 8,000

The backlog has now dipped to just below 8,000. This demonstrates (I hope) excellent work. However, I am coming across many pages that have now slipped into to encyclopedia unpatrolled after 90 days. For the moment, the one's I have come across were ones I would have normally accepted, but it's probably the tip of an iceberg. We can't stress enough that 8,000 is still far too many to avoid this happening. Keep up the good work - ACTRIAL ends soon... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

​Yes. Our goal should definitely be to reduce the backlog to well below the 90 day limit before the end of ACTRIAL (around the 14th March). I was hoping that we could reduce the backlog to that level during our backlog drive, but at the current pace of the first week, it looks like we might fall quite a bit short of that (we have still made a lot of progress, so keep up the good work). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 07:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• It'd probably help if the reviewers tried to work the older unreviewed articles first. I'm sorting oldest to newest in the feed to do this. But maybe many of the reviewers are already doing this. -Finlayson ( talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I currently don't have access to Internet from a computer, ironically that's because of my work in computer science. But when I used to review articles, in the session first I used "oldest first" filter, and at the end I used to use "newest first" for a few articles; for keeping a lookout for spam, trolling, A7, G11 and similar stuff. It is a good strategy: within one session 80% work on oldest; and at the end 20% work on newest. I'll be back around 15th Jan I think. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that's how I'm doing it too. A day's worth from the back, then a sweep off the top. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Good on you guys. Patrolling from the back is very important, and not all reviewers are able. I also review mostly from the back and a bit from the front. I use User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol to show the newest articles as a list on the left side of my screen (sometimes I see obvious weird names that I'll click on, or subjects that I recognize or am curious about). I also use User:Lourdes/PageCuration to put a handy link in the upper right to the page curation New Page Feed (which I set to 'oldest' first). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello all,

WikiJournals are peer reviewed academic journals that integrate their content into Wikipedia (example in WikiJournal and on Wikipedia). For many of the contributors, submitting an article is the first time they've used MediaWiki. Even though they use VisualEditor (via a submission portal here) there are often formatting and copyedit errors. We also get submissions from those for whom English isn't their first language. In particular, it is common for them to struggle with inserting their references inline. Examples:

• Lysine: Biosynthesis, Catabolism and Roles
• ShK toxin: history, structure and therapeutic applications for autoimmune diseases

Would anyone be interested in helping monitor submissions for formatting and errors (full list here)? Any aid appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) ^talk 12:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Week one of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details).

Results:

• 5658 reviews were completed (including redirects and articles).
• The backlog has reduced by 1900 articles.
• The total number of unreviewed redirects seems to have remained around the same over the week (~7.5k).
• The most reviews were completed by Babymissfortune at 527. ^{(the totals for all participants can be viewed HERE)}
• The oldest articles of the backlog are now from the 27th April 2017, at the beginning of the drive they were around the first week of the month.

At the present rate of reduction, the backlog should hit around ~2000 by the end of the backlog drive, and the oldest articles will be from July-August 2017.

Please consider reviewing from the back of the backlog (choosing 'Sort by: Oldest' from the New Page Feed). A major goal of the drive should be to reduce the tail end of the backlog to more recent than the 90 day index point (which will at that point be at the end of October).

If we pick up the pace just slightly, we have a real chance of not only reducing the tail end to below the 90 day index point, but also completely eliminating the backlog! Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 01:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering (most likely for like a next backlog drive, if needed again) if we should have have some sort of double points for pages beyond the 90 day point. Because at 8000 page backlog level it could easily be under 90 days. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

While I would love to implement something like this, it is beyond my coding knowledge to create such a query in Quarry (it might be possible though). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 06:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's another problem. I assume there's some parameter that tells if an article is within the 90 day limit and noindexed; would need to checked for. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 12:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the prediction for month end backlog, was the of rate of new creations calculated? As no matter how many pages are reviewed, the new ones will come along. eg: in the first week, ~5.5k pages were reviewed, but the backlog dropped by ~2k. That is, ~3.5k pages were created in that week. That is an average of 500 pages per day. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@ usernamekiran. A bit less in terms of articles. You can work it out by subtracting this graph from this graph. Looks to be about 350 a day roughly. The math doesn't add up because there were also a bunch of redirects created and reviewed during that period as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Today, an editor notified me (via User talk:Ritchie333#I'm retiring) that they were quitting Wikipedia after a WP:BITEy CSD tag from Arthistorian1977. After a short conversation, Andrew Davidson and Noswall59 suggested it may be worth considering the removal of AH1977's New Page Patrol (NPR) user right because of too many mistakes.

I'm personally not convinced there is enough evidence to suggest that AH1977 is making lots of mistakes (although New Page Reviewers are cautioned to be careful, we cannot expect them to be perfect) and he has apologised over the deletion tags. However, there is a difference of opinion over what AfD should be used for - is it for a general "health check" of an article, or (as I believe) a final resort when all attempts to improve an article have failed and it's unsalvageable. As I don't think a consensus is going to form on my talk page, I'd like to bring the discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to play ping-pong with the threads here, but shouldn't this be something discussed at WT:NPR? ANI seems a bit excessive. Primefac ( talk) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I should make clear that I never said that AH1977 needs to have his/her NPR rights removed, but that their recent AfD nom of an article I created ( Jack Croft Baker) is very questionable. I gather others have stronger views, but I can't vouch for his/her editing patterns in general. — Noswall59 ( talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

Oh right - just to emphasise, the main motivation for the thread was to move the discussion off my user talk page to a more appropriate place, not because I want to get AH1977 into trouble (heaven forbid). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Understandable, and I wasn't trying to imply anything, just thinking that NPRs would be better suited towards discussing the future of an NPR than the folk that regularly "patrol" ANI. Primefac ( talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was examining his deletion tag log, and definitely needs to reread the csd criterion carefully. However don't think that there are so many mistakes (thinking similar to ritchie) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently thinks A7 is applicable to articles that don't have a "indication of notability" judging by what he said on Ritchie333's talk. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, after more than 4000 reviews in a year, I was never abused of WP:BITE and called jerk, which happened today. Actually, I was never called jerk at all. I looked at Imaginelenin reaction to another CSD he had and it looks to me like WP:DRAMA. CSD and AdF can upset new editor, I agree with that, but rules are rules and I try to do the best to explain what should be done in order to avoid them both. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, rules and rules except you don't seem to understand them well for CSDs. The csd tags were very incorrect and very quick - definitely WP:BITE. See about trying to keep articles, not delete them as soon as possible. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the " WP:DRAMA" - the previous article was CSDed by someone else 1 minute after creation - definitely justified to be upset at not even waiting to let the creator expand on it.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• AfD can be used when a nominator believes in good faith that the article may qualify for deletion, but is unsure of it, and thus brings it to the community for review. It is not a last resort: it is the default procedure in our deletion process, and so long as the nominator advances an argument under our policies and guidelines that have some basis in reality, an AfD nomination is not disruptive. AFDISNOTCLEANUP is a snarky redirect that is used to bludgeon good faith policy-based arguments advancing deletion, nothing more.
  That being said, I would caution Arthistorian to take it slower with their deletion tagging. Just doung a quick glance through the deletion tag log from yesterday, I see more blue than I like on CSD taggings. Be more careful and review the CSD criteria. I see nothing suggesting we should remove the user right now, and would caution any administrator against doing it in this specific case without consensus: in cases that are not clear-cut, ArbCom has looked very poorly on unilateral removal of user rights of experienced users, which as an aside, is why I think we should be stricter in granting. I don't see grounds to justify revocation here, but AH1977 should be aware that further issues could lead to it being revoked. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think the right needs to be yanked. Looking through AH1977's AFD log, the hit and miss of the noms seems to be about half. I don't know if there is a desired rate (besides 99%) but when I realised I myself had a low success rate at AfD I really abandoned nominations unless I had absolutely no doubt that the subject was not notable. As in, GNews-comes-up-blank-than-my-TSP-account no doubts. I wouldn't have done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tabori, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Cherry is a easy delete. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 18:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think we can all agree that Arthistorian1977 deserves a big fish for Good Germans. I also found another instance of a misapplied {{ db-nocontext}} from a few days ago ( Special:PermanentLink/819122262), so perhaps @ Arthistorian1977: take some time to refresh yourself on that criterion. But other than that, I've looked through several pages of his logs and found nothing that jumps out at me as egregious. If anything, I'd say he's less trigger-happy than the average NPPer because he seems to prefer to use AfD rather than CSD or PROD (which I think is to be encouraged).

I know we all hate to see new editors put off the project, but at the same time NPP is a vital editorial function so let's try not to put off patrollers by jumping on every mistake either. It's impossible to review thousands of new pages and not ruffle feathers occasionally. The CSD tag was removed from Good Germans in less than half an hour, the page was not deleted, and Arthistorian1977 apologised for the hasty tagging. As far as I'm concerned it should be a case of no harm, no foul. –  Joe ( talk) 18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict)I agree with Joe. We are talking about an active editor. A few mishaps are bound to happen as nobody is perfect. Lets just hope that it shouldnt happen frequently. We make mistakes, but we also should learn from them, and try not to repeat them. Seeing the behavioural reaction from ArtHistorian, I would suggest them to be careful with CSD tagging, and AfD nominations. They accepted their mistake, and apologised. This is a good sign. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers may have an opinion on the matter raised here : Noyster (talk), 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The current state of the backlog is represented visually to the right. Articles marked in red are currently indexed by google. Articles marked orange are not indexed, but are more than a month old. There are some interesting trends, the most obvious of which is the large gap in October. Somebody has been reviewing the bottom of the 90 day backlog to ensure that no more unreviewed articles slip through to the indexed portion of the backlog, I am curious to know who...

The colours indicate long term goals, we should be aiming to reduce the backlog down to no more than 30 days in my opinion (thats why I have marked that bit in green), as this gives us a very healthy buffer before the index point (and is a nice round number to aim for), however, I think we could still be happy just keeping it contained anywhere in the orange area.

While patrolling the front of the queue is important to catch obvious CSD candidates, this graph indicates the importance of patrolling the back of the backlog.

If you are looking to patrol from a specific point from within the backlog, there isn't an automatic way to do that. However, there is a relatively quick method: go to the NPP browser, sort by 'Created', set the number of items per page to 100 (bottom left), and spam click the 'next' button. You can stack up multiple clicks and it will jump forward many pages all at once (you only have to click about 35 times to cycle through half of the backlog, and you can start from either end by sorting the articles the other way, so this is a relatively efficient method). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a very interesting graph. Definitely food for thought - shows a lot of the backlog is still past 90 days rather than new. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 10:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok... sorry about the image spam, but this might be interesting to some of you guys. I combined yesterdays graph with today's to get an idea of the overlap. This shows us a bit of where everyone has been working throughout the backlog. Note however that there are also ~350 new articles that would have been added to the 10th and 11th, most of which have been reviewed, so the majority of the work is being done there but isn't shown on this graph. The backlog didn't actually reduce that much today, but as you can see, we are doing good work of reducing the back of the backlog even on days when the backlog doesn't change much. Good work and thanks everyone. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's a daily thing it might get annoying, but I like seeing the timeline (and I'm also a big fan of crunching numbers). Maybe throw a timeline-style progression in a subpage, and just replace the above image with the newest variant? Primefac ( talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe images at intervals overlapping in a gif would nicely show the backlog decreasing. Anyhow, appreciate the stats. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

​ I plan to query a snapshot of the backlog each day so, I should have the data for a Gif like that. I'll produce one at the end of the backlog drive to show our progress (at least from the 10th onward). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 21:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice! I'd love to see it. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 04:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The backlog is now down to 6,400. At this rate we should be able to hit zero and keep it to a day's intake. Once that is done, it should be an all out effort to examine new articles and AfD submissions more closely for all the traits of paid and unpaid undeclared paid editing - a quick peek at   COIN will show how important this is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

with NPR, a lot of the editors have an expiry date. Let it be number of pages, number of days, or "just losing interest", in the end a lot of the editors dont review articles much. Before the backlog starts increasing again, we should be getting new reviewers. Once the backlog s very down, then all the reviewers will try to review. Its like, one finds it interesting when it is not easily available (process of reviewing in this case). —usernamekiran (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewers - this means YOU

I'm reproducing an 11-year old message from the WMF that Athaenaram kindly pointed me to a few moments ago:

Brad Patrick bradp.wmf at gmail.com Fri Sep 29 17:13:35 UTC 2006

Dear Community:

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.

We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked.

Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.

Thank you for your help.

-Brad Patrick
User:BradPatrick
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

( BradPatrick has the distinction of having been the interim Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as its inaugural General Counsel). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Didnt Ed Poor delete the VfD a long time ago? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So, as a practical consideration. There really isn't much of a playground between AfD and CSD, is there? If I (by now) correctly understand the difference between "indications of notability" for the former, and "claims of importance" for the latter - saying "it's a famous movie studie" already takes it out of CSD territory, and the next thing on the severity scale is AfD. Is there anything less community-intensive in between for the purported blowhard with the two MySpace hits? (assuming that a PROD notice won't last long...) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Elmidae, very few CSDs actually get undeleted. AfD is different. Generally for borderline cases but where the nominator assumes the result will be 'delete'. Most are. but quite a few get kept. The downside is that anyone can vote and even a fully qualified closer would be hard pressed to close against an incorrect but overwhelming consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember this... it's most of the reason why we implemented G11. That bought us some time, but we need to up our game. We won't be able to stop spamming altogether -- there will always be a market for these services, but we can make it a lot more expensive. MER-C 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MER-C, as usual, is correct. We will never be able to stop this completely. The best we can do is make it not profitable for the majority of people to spam Wikipedia. That starts at NPP. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure what exactly we are discussing here.
  We are "getting there" only because the zeal of reviewers of the editors who joined the NPR team recently. But as Kudpung has once said, editors lose interest in reviewing after a while for some reason or other. What I am trying to say here is, if we slow down on reviewing part, then planning about what to when backlog is under 1000 would be immaterial. For now, we should only concentrate on quality reviewing, and getting the backlog down. Hopefully, nobody would lose interest in reviewing. But we should "hope for the best, and prepare for the worst". And that means we should get new reviewers.
  We should think/plan about the other/future activites once the backlog is ~2000; till then we should work on reviewing with a lookout for prospective reviewers. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We're not really discussing anything new, Kiran. I posted that as a reminder that these isues are not new, and that we should not be zimperlich with our handling of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the backlog ever starts going up again, I'll run through the next thousand editors on the list of top wikipedians and invite some more to join us... That is my preparation for the worst. After we get down I might rework an invite template to ask for editors to help out with identifying COI editors, then run through the next 1000. I agree that we should focus on quality reviewing first, and reducing the backlog, but it is useful to remind people to look out for obvious COI editors. I discovered a couple of socks yesterday that had been able to get away with recreating all the articles that were deleted the last time their sock got banned, quite a few weeks worth of editing, mostly due to many of those articles being unreviewed in the backlog. Editors reviewing articles at the very back of the backlog (those converted from redirects), should especially look out for socks and COI editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a speedy deletion category for articles written by undisclosed CoI editors, but at the moment when I see these editors but the article they have written is not "unambiguously promotional", I do not know what to do, apart from AfD, which takes time and effort. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has a valid point. Usually if the article is created by a known sock, then it can be CSD tagged as "article created during evasion of a block". But the articles with mild promotional tone, and/or a few WP:RS cant be tagged for speedy. At most, it can be AfD'ed, or tagged with a possible COI or biased langauge maintenance tag.
@ Kudpung and Insertcleverphrasehere: Is it possible to go through the category of "articles tagged with XYZ issue" by date of article creation? If so, we can concentrate on the newly created articles with COI/promotional tags, and weed out undisclosed paid editors and/or socks. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, how do you recognise a sock? The CoI editors I observe often have created an account to write a single article, which comes perfectly formed, with correctly formatted references, in a single edit. They obviously know what they are doing, but how do you know if they are socks? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 21:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Gut feeling , Cwmhiraeth, gut feeling. It comes with years of experience as a patroller, and possibly by working a lot at SPI and COIN. A lot of it involves tediously slogging patiently through archives and following leads. That why my 6 - 8 hours a day on Wikipedia is nowhere reflected in my modest edit count. And when I find one, it's a nugget. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mostly gut feeling. And the obvious tale-tell signs. Like recreation of deleted articles, same style and similar stuff. Or mostly by the sock-tag on the userpage. But without the tag, everything gets time consuming. And if there is not enough evidence to file an SPI, then we need to treat it as a possible COI. I have learned this from experience though. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been mulling over what to do with the England school census article for the past hour. Earwig's copyvio tool shows copyvios some, at least, of which are valid with the sources being copyright protected. The violations are relatively modest but go back to the original creation of the article (21705 B) so rev-del would remove the whole article. The article is much too long and detailed, has inline external links and probably NPOV problems. The creator is a one-purpose undisclosed CoI editor (has also created National Pupil Database). Any suggestions as to how best to proceed are welcome. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, it seems to have been reviewed already by Theroadislong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Theroadislong probably did not check it for copyright violations. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? how would a revdel remove the whole article? Just would hide visibility of the first revision, but the clean revision would be there. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Earwig reports 75.2% but a lot of it is names of organisations and quotes. What you do is go through the article and remove the offending phrases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Revdel'd the worst of it. What remains is mostly just longquotes. Still needs a lot of work, but the cv is dealt with. Primefac ( talk) 17:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

By way of introduction, I mostly patrol the NPP queue for articles by blocked users, focusing on those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry. The dilemma is what to do with the articles that may meet an SNG, but were created by such (now) banned users. For example, here are the articles by مرتضى_يوسف: link. Over a hundred, with most being one-line, unsourced bios of football players, plus a tricked out infobox and an external link.

Here's my typical PROD:

• A directory-like page that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet requirements of WP:BLP; only source provided is an external site containing game stats. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/مرتضى_يوسف currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

However, some have been declined based on meeting WP:FOOTY. Any suggestions? Leave those articles alone? Take them to AfD? Take then to WP:AN and ask for a mass deletion? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Any new article created by Arab-soccer-sock I tag as G5 or use Special:Nuke in rare circumstances when he's done only a few new articles and they are all recent. Given how prolific this specific case is, they likely have had other socks before that are stale. I am not personally comfortable G5ing before the initial block, but I suppose PROD could work citing that they are now a serial sockmaster. GiantSnowman was the blocking admin and is also involved in FOOTY content, so they might be able to provide advice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My view on sock puppetry is, even if the article appears notable, delete per WP:DENY. Giant Snowman 08:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If they're one-sentence stubs, then they can easily be rewritten by someone who isn't a sockpuppet (see the SvG case for precedent). Give me an on-wiki list of pages and I'll d-batch the lot. Primefac ( talk) 14:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Primefac: Here's the link to the articles created by this user: List at xtools. Is this what you were looking for? K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I was looking for an enwiki list so that I could d-batch the whole thing, but I suppose I could copy/paste it here. Primefac ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, what is "d-batch"? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Batch deletion. Primefac ( talk) 02:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Primefac: should I provide a list here? K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Depending on how large the list is, I'd probably chuck it into a subpage, but yes. Primefac ( talk) 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Just as a note, Mhsohaib ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the master here. Newly blocked after this conversation started. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• @ Primefac: The list is now here: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Sandbox. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac ( talk) 21:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The backlog is now at 4 digits for the first time since July 2016!

To finish it off, the New Year Backlog Drive is set to begin at 00:00 AM UTC on January 1st! The drive will run until 00:00 AM UTC on January 29th.

Active reviewers during this period will be given awards in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive (each 7 day block from 00:00 AM UTC on January 1st)

You will be able to check your review count with the following SQL queries once the drive starts (which I will endeavour to keep updated at least twice daily):

First week total

Second week total

Third week total

Fourth week total

4 week total

You can check when I last updated the query by scrolling down the list HERE.

Awards

Total review count awards: Each editor will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar (with 100 or more reviews during the backlog drive), as well an additional badge for higher review counts.

Per week 'streak' awards: To qualify for an award from this category, an editor will have reviewed the listed number of articles during each week of the backlog drive. Each editor will be given one award representing the highest tier for which they qualify. The images of spinning gears are intended to represent ongoing commitment to the project through regular reviewing.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere will the counter pick up all spaces or just the namespace? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 23:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

L3X1, Just mainspace, but I can configure something to check user reviews of other spaces if it's something valuable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 23:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere I know that this counter made in July does all spaces, and I spend most of my time patrolling the userspace for U5, G11, G12, and G3 candidates, which I find in abundance. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to provide a $10 Amazon gift card (or something along those lines if the drive organizers prefer) for the overall winner as a nominal prize and encourage others to chip in as well. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally not keen to have monetary or monetary equivalent awards for reviewing. First, the system is slightly game-able, as redirects do count for the total review count (note that reviewing redirects is still very important, but I don't want to disincentivise article reviewing). Also, and more importantly, it encourages speedy and sloppy reviewing (even if just on a unconscious level). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 06:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note: The backlog drive has officially begun as of a few hours ago. Abishe has taken an early lead. Please continue to review to a high standard and resist the urge to rush while reviewing. Our goal is to reduce the backlog by reviewing correctly. Cheers and happy editing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 05:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Bump. so that the bot doesn't archive. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 06:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Week two of the Backlog Drive is complete (see above section for more details). The backlog of unreviewed articles is now at 5850.

A visual representation of the change in the backlog from the 10th to now is shown above (I only started gathering data on the 10th).

Results:

• 176 reviewers participated in week 2, compared to 190 in week one.
• 5941 reviews were completed (including redirects and articles). About 350 articles were created each day during this period.
• The backlog has reduced by another ~1900 articles. (about the same as last week)
• The total number of unreviewed redirects has reduced by about 500, from ~7.5k to just under 7k.
• The most reviews were completed by Boleyn at 542. ^{(the totals for all participants can be viewed HERE)}
• The oldest articles of the backlog are now from the 29th May 2017, at the beginning of the week the oldest articles were from the 27th April (a reduction of about 1 month).

At the current rate, we are still unlikely to reduce the backlog to below 2000 articles by the end of the drive, and are still unlikely to reduce it to the 90 day index point by then (we should get to about mid-end July at the current rate of back-of-the-backlog reduction).

Overall good work to keep the pace up from last week. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But still, we have made huge progress if compared with where we were in October 2017! At this rate, even if we dont achieve the target of "no 90 days old articles" by January end; we will achieve it very soon. We heading in the right direction, with right methods. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

​Definitely! Apologies if my comments implied otherwise. The final deadline that we have for a complete reduction of the backlog is the end of ACTRIAL (14th March). At the current rate, we should comfortably remove the backlog with about a month to spare. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

lol. No, your comments were not negative. I apologise if my comment conveyed such message. What I am trying to say is, January or the backlog drive are not the only things we should be thinking about. :) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

​Indeed, it is important to be hyperopic rather than myopic with these things. Generally the plan has to be to remove the backlog before ACTRIAL, and then keep it that way during the return to pre-ACTRIAL (hopefully will only last a month or so). If I have to send out more invites to accomplish either of these goals, that is what I'll do. At the moment it is not needed, as we are making solid progress and were doing so before the backlog drive even started (suggesting that the baseline number of reviews that the current reviewers can review each day is higher than the current influx each day). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Slightly off topic, when removing the "happy 2018!" from my signature today I decided to add a recuiting bit: "(Redacted)" However, the Tq| template doesn't make the link to WP:NPP green, it stays blue. Any ideas on hwo to fix this else I'll head over to the Signature help page. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

L3X1 you're substing the tq template..it uh is a lot of code. Should just try to do the formatting yourself.. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 11:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's huge, and breaks most of our rules. Primefac ( talk) 12:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Z L3X1, See Help:Link_color. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)} 19:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

4998! I never thought I would see numbers this low! Well done everybody. Boleyn ( talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​yup! we are now officially below 5k. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog ( talk) 02:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

withdrew it - discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC_discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)