Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TutorialDiscussionNew page feed
Curation tool
NPP backlog
12097 ↑43
Oldest article
7 years old
Oldest redirect
3 months old
Article reviews
Redirect reviews
  • There is a very large articles backlog
  • The articles backlog is growing rapidly (↑473 since last week)
  • There is a very large redirects backlog

NPP backlog[edit]

NPP unreviewed article statistics as of December 9, 2023

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Feedback on NewPagesFeed design changes (Codex conversion)[edit]

Hey, as part of the recent efforts to convert the feed to use the Vue/Codex, I have proposed some UI changes to bring the NewPages feed inline with the Wikimedia styling guidelines. Let me know if there are any objections/suggestions/other comments wrt to the change :)

Changes in the filter select screen
Changes to the feed in general

Sohom (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me! I will be the first to speak up if I feel that changes to the UI are too big or are moving us backwards, but these changes are small and seem fine. Thanks for your work on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sohom Datta: I think these are significant improvements, but where have the "predicted class" and "potential issues" parts of the filter and feed gone? – Joe (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And on a much more minor note, the issue 'chips' could have smaller text: with the added padding and background, they draw more attention than anything else on the page. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In regards to predicted class and potential issues disappearing, I don't think mw:Extension:ORES is installed on PatchDemo. I think those will return once the patch is merged and we are able to check it on the mw:Beta Cluster. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joe Roe The predicted class and potential issues don't show up on the patchdemo version since the relevant configurations are not present, This and this are how the latest iteration looks on my current development setup with the (mostly) correct enough configurations.
Wrt to the chips, that is definitely a good point, I will look into lowering the font size for those elements. Sohom (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks fine then, thanks. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accessibility feedback. I am an AfC and so didn't see this feedback request. I would have objected pretty strongly if I'd have known.
  1. the lack of colour banding makes the entire page stark white, which is a strain on the eyes and makes it harder to differentiate submissions.
  2. massive white space between the metadata and the article text, reducing the amount of articles I can view at once from 6 to 3. Apparently this is a bug?
  3. inconsistency in button colours: the Review button is light-grey-on-white, so harder to distinguish than before, but the Set filter button in the filter float menu is blue.
  4. header bar is a lighter grey than before which reduces the visual differentiation between it and surrounding UI elements, i.e. the hover to switch between NPP and AfC is light grey, with a lighter grey highlight, and a white button.
Overall its the whole "white-ification" of all UI elements that I really struggle with. You need to use colour a bit in order to make these elements stand out, otherwise it all gets lost in a see of white. Qcne (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I kinda like the old one better. Is there a way to choose? :) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You can currently use the old version however, the general idea is to phase out the old feed in favour of this new version since the old version is pretty difficult to maintain from a code quality point of view. If you have feedback, let us know and we can hopefully fix most of the sticking points. Sohom (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I definitely like the old version better. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing article count[edit]

The new feed doesn't say how many articles are left to review. The old version had the total above the newest/oldest button towards the top right. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, @WikiOriginal-9. This is a big oversight @Sohom Datta? Qcne (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, good point, this was reported by @MPGuy2824 as well, it can't be placed in that exact spot (due to it being hard to do in Codex), however, I think it can be placed next to the Set filters button, would that work ? Sohom (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll place it somewhere. We can workshop the details at Linguae (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this about the AfC pending draft counts? That's is what I came by to report as its missing. If so, I suggest keeping it simple by adding the AfC counts to where ever the NPP counts are (currently at the bottom, but it in looking below that may change), like XXX Drafts are pending review (one place to look for counts). If this is not about AfC counts, let me know and I will start a new section. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this section is about "X pages in your filtered list" that used to appear above Newest/Oldest in the "list control nav" (topbar). It displays exactly how many articles exist with the currently specified filter parameters. See screenshots in the phabricator ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The whitespace issue is a bug, a fix for it is being worked on at gerrit:974103. Sohom (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whitespace issue is fixed. That was the biggest obvious bug so we rushed that one out. Will work on these other issues at a slower pace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the things multiple people have commented on here is that we're seeing fewer articles at a time. The current 'margins' for the page information are small, so there ends up being so much white space in the middle of the feed, and each of the entries is much thicker. In the two images above, none of the articles have much information, so the problem I'm seeing doesn't exist. How hard would it be to address the margins? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Significa liberdade This has been fixed as of a few minutes ago. If it doesn't show up, try refreshing your browser cache :) Sohom (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Novem Linguae (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Floating footer[edit]

Why have we got a new grey bar at the bottom of the new pages feed, which obscures the, err, new pages feed? Why do UI deigners think their UI controls are so important that they should obscure the stuff that we actually want to see? It's way way way stupid. Please remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tagishsimon The bar (the one with the unreviewed articles count on it) has been there for a while (as far as I can see is still present on the 'old' feed on enwiki).
Personally, I am not attached to the bottom bar and have considered moving the refresh button+autorefresh toggle beside the set filter toggle (but I'm unsure if that would break somebodies workflow) :) Sohom (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're talking about the bar that has statistics on how many pages are reviewed and unreviewed, it's always been there: see this video tour from when NewPagesFeed was released, for example. – Joe (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not attached to the bottom bar and have considered moving the refresh button+autorefresh toggle beside the set filter toggle. Me neither. I don't like floating stuff. Would anyone object if we deleted the floating bottom bar and moved that stuff into the topbar as Sohom suggested? If no objections let's do it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. It's incidentally one of the main things that makes the mobile view of Special:NewPagesFeed unusable (it floats over half the actual list). – Joe (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ticket to remove the floating footer and put its info in the non-floating header is We can move forward with this as soon as someone writes a patch. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The changes have been merged and you can test them out on the beta wiki. They should be deployed on enwiki in two weeks this week. Sohom (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm bad at calculating merge windows apparently :) Sohom (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some feedback
  • The grey box at the top is now much bigger, because each of the three elements of the left side has been changed, arguably not to any good effect
  • What was previously a comprehensible radio button UI selection between New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation is now two large titles which don't actually look like controls (i.e. they're not actually a button, they could be a header, who knows). I naively think UI controls should look like controls.
  • It's not absolutely clear why Set Filters (now a big button) cannot be on the same line as Active filters.
  • The number of Articles for Creation in the queue has been lost from the left side of grey box. It was quite important information.
  • The sort by box has lost the words 'Sort by', so the user just has to guess what that selection box is all about
  • The statistics at the foot of the page are incomprehesible to me. When Articles for Creation is selected, stats at the bottom talk about 50319 articles and 688 redirects are unreviewed (oldest: 4594 days) 28 articles and 0 redirects were reviewed this week but I don't recognise those as figures that have anything todo with Articles for Creation, the queue for which is about 170 drafts right now, AFAIK. Change to New Page Patrol and we're informed 9862 articles and 10582 redirects are unreviewed (oldest: 4407 days) 1496 articles and 3426 redirects were reviewed this week which who knows, may be true, but begs the question why the figures change so much between the two views, when the terminology suggests they are reporting on the same thing.
  • Sadly the floating bottom bar has not yet been removed.
  • There just does not seem to be any design coherence. Compare the New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation selector, with the Newest Oldest selector when New Page Patrol is selected. Newest and Oldest are both in boxes. The selected button is highlighted in blue. New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation are not in boxes. The selected label is highlighted in white. The control for filters is blue text in a blue box. No coherenece; every UI element a new design surprise :(
On the plus side, you got rid of the drop shadow, so well done for that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the issues that you point out have phabricator tickets tracked against them. See the above-subsections. The stats shown in the "Articles for Creation" mode is a new issue and there is now a ticket for it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not absolutely clear why Set Filters (now a big button) cannot be on the same line as Active filters. The technical reason for this is due to CSS constraints, having a large wrappable list in the middle of two buttons isn't the easiest to maintain in the long term not to mention, it will cause issues wrt to responsiveness
  • The grey box at the top is now much bigger, because each of the three elements of the left side has been changed, arguably not to any good effect The only reason the topbar seems bigger is due to the set filters button moving down, which, is due to a technical reason :)
Sohom (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did the reviewers database stop updating?[edit]

Did the reviewers database stop updating? I believe the numbers have been frozen for at least a few days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What data are you referring to? The stats in Special:NewPagesFeed's footer? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry that I was not clearer Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. There's no replag. The bot is updating twice a day like it's supposed to. The diffs aren't null edits with zero change, they have some changes. Can you give an example of a frozen reviewer/number? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What caught my eye is that I've been doing a few reviews every day for the last several days and I think I checked and was never listed in the "last 24 hours" on any of those days. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This requires a fix to the bot which generates the report. I've asked for a change here. Please subscribe to that topic if you are interested. Anyone else who runs queries regarding page reviews should also see that topic. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Resolved This has now been fixed. The latest version of the report does have your name in the "Last 24 hours section". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! North8000 (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Knowledge Association[edit]

Now call me a nasty, suspicious person, but in the course of reviewing a number of pages yesterday, I came across some very natty creations where the author has declared they receive a stipend from the Open Knowledge Association. The first couple of these I let fly by, automatically thinking of them as some sort of Wikipedian in residence some sort of where, but then I took a closer look at OKA and, indeed, at the pages in question. In a number, not all, of these pages I found lavish, loving detail that, while tangential to the main page topic, nevertheless seemed to give unnecessary focus to what may in fact be a sponsoring organisation. So this here article had daft amounts of detail about the newly installed church organ, attributing it to the manufacturer. This article didn't fail to make several mentions of books by a redlinked author that are set around the historical subject, while this one took great care to give attribution for recent archeology to a specific institute. It might be nothing, I might be tilting at windmills. In each case I removed the content and bookmarked the page and sat back to see what happens. Right now I don't have the time to do a huge amount of sleuthing beyond this - but it would seem to me that there are a number of these new creations being made with a promotional purpose that is quite smart - build links to the subject by writing/translating articles about another subject. And that would be, by my reading of consensus on paid editing, naughty. Any views out there? Is my reading right? If so, is this to be tolerated? Is my 'root out the promo target and remove it then mark as reviewed as normal' methodology worth adopting for these OKA paid articles? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I think it would be worth following up on this at WP:COIN. I've long thought that OKA's model sounds suspicious, but hadn't seen any actual problematic articles until now. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Joe Roe - I copied this here post over there and here's the handy dandy link to that discussion for anyone who wants to further contribute to this! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF New Article Creation research outreach invite[edit]

Hello all! I'm a researcher at the Foundation conducting interviews for the article creation process, and our Growth and Apps teams are hoping to gather insights from both the perspectives of new page patrollers/mods and also of newer editors. Specifically for patrollers, I'd love to hear your biggest pain points faced when reviewing the new page feed, and what interventions or solutions may be possible/desired.

If you'd like to contribute your point of view, feel free to reply here, ping my talk page, or email me for more details. Your participation in this project would be deeply appreciated; thanks in advance and hope to hear from you! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dchen (WMF): Sounds great, I'd be happy to participate. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviews vs. Patrols[edit]

Is there anywhere that says how many total "reviews" you've done? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can check your total reviews and patrols for the last 12 months in this database report. There's also a Quarry query available here to tally up your total reviews. I hope this helps. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's another quarry query. It can be forked and changed to have the target person's name. Keep in mind this will not include CSD tagging. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feed incorrectly tagging pages as orphans[edit]

I've noticed that a decent amount of articles in the new pages feed are tagged as orphans but they actually aren't. The feed says Efraín Sarmiento Cuero is an orphan. Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like mw:Extension:PageTriage only updates the Orphan tag when the page itself is edited. I just edited Efraín Sarmiento Cuero and the tag correctly went away. It'd probably be too expensive to calculate it on edits to every single page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this summer, I am doing Orphan tag removal on "old orphan" articles. My working subpage is at User:JoeNMLC/Article orphan query. For 2015, I untagged over 2,000 articles. Yes, some are from recent months, but these may just be an accumulation over the years. Occasionally on the last week of the month, I run that Query to cleanup the current months "not-orphans". Anyone here who would like to help is most welcome. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • PROPOSAL: - How about changing the actual "Orphan" tag to Orphan? instead, indicating the article needs to be checked (What links here) before tagging. I have no knowledge of the procedure to change other than to Discuss first. Expert help here would be great. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That seems reasonable. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JoeNMLC Feel free to make a phabricator ticket. I'm not really sure about the exact "fix" being proposed here, but it might be worth it to losen up the language surrounding the "Orphan" warning and/or see if we can make it more accurate. Sohom (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sohom - There was prior discussion/mention last year of NPP Orphan not being accurate here. Also, I recall a note of an Orphan fix being very difficult to do. Yes, if the flagging cannot be made more accurate, adding the "?" on the flag may at least help people understand to check the article before possibly adding the Orphan tag. For "phabricator ticket", I am clueless how to do that & not sure how long (months?/years?) to get done. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JoeNMLC I've filed a phabricator ticket in relation to this thread. I don't think the text "Orphan?" is a good way of representing this, I would personally suggest "Maybe orphan" instead. Sohom (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have gone ahead and implemented a fix for this, it should make it into production over the coming weeks/months. Sohom (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Sohom - Thank you for doing this. Is there any way of knowing when this change does "go live"? Other than seeing the Orphan flag being different. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's complicated. When the gerrit patch is approved, it will go out on the next train. The cutoff for a same week train is around Monday evening. Enwiki is group 2, so deploys on Thursdays. Not all weeks have a train. wikitech:Deployments/Yearly calendarNovem Linguae (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Novem Linguae - Thanks for the deployment info. I read through the patch description and it looks spot-on. Hopefully, it will insure greater accuracy only tagging of articles actually orphans, or fixing those without incoming links. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also filed a ticket last week to address this by adding a link in the tag to Special:WhatLinksHere/[Title] to help reviewers check that it is really orphaned. SilverLocust 💬 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As @Novem Linguae mentioned, the review and deployment process does take a non-trivial amount of time. It does seem like @MPGuy2824 has submitted a fix and the fix is in review. Sohom (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I know. This wasn't a complaint about it not having been immediately rolled out. SilverLocust 💬 15:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh :) No issues, I mean it purely informationally :) Sohom (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't really understand how the redirects autopatrolled list works, as well as its requirements. Toadette (Happy Thanksgiving!) 08:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Procedures. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might be referring to being whitelisted for the bot which marks them as reviewed. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We need another sprint after christmas and no messing about. It needs to come down to about 1200. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're thinking about doing a backlog drive in March. Could potentially move it to February or January. Folks, please feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Next NPP drive in March 2024?Novem Linguae (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Common" section of toolbar is gone[edit]

The "Common" tags section has disappeared from the toolbar. That was pretty useful. Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was intentionally removed because we thought the filter tag feature was better and had mostly replaced the "common" tags. But if a bunch of people say they want the common tags back, we can look into adding it back. Are the common tags a big part of anyone else's workflow? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Novem Linguae, thanks for your comment. By filter tag, do you mean the search bar? I think it's a little faster to have certain ones available than having to type what you want. Maybe there could be an option to personalize it? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the search bar is what I was thinking when I said filter tag feature. Personalization is probably a bit too much work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you for the info. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. Was coming here to report the loss of the 'Common tags' section. Personally, I found it pretty handy... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faster redirect patrolling[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to let y'all know that I've created User:Sohom_Datta/fastreview.js a small script that register two hotkeys to allow users to use r to review redirects and n to go to next redirect in the queue in relation to T352418 :) Sohom (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student papers[edit]

Hello, NPP folks,

We are coming to the end of a school term and are entering a phase where well-intentioned students that are participating in Wiki-Ed courses move their user sandboxes into main space. I ran into 7 just yesterday, 2 were actually decent articles but the other 5 could be identified by the fact that the sandbox tag had not even been removed from the draft, now main space article. Instead of tagging these pages for deletion, consider moving them to Draft space or back to the User page where they came from. If you're already doing this, well thank you! I've alerted Ian who works with WikiEd instructors but they don't necessarily influence the actions of students who are proud of their work. Thanks for all of your help. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If these are tagged for issues or draftified, it's unlikely IME that the student will come back and fix them up. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving to draftspace should only ever be done in cases where something is WP:TOOSOON, if something passes GNG moving it into draftspace is just in effect a soft deletion.★Trekker (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Model for Emulating Wikipedia Articles[edit]

Hello, I'm part of a research project as part of Stanford's OVAL. We are studying building tools that are factually grounded which I'm sure you can imagine is quite a challenge. We have built a model that appears to be relatively accurate and are hoping for Wikipedia Collaborators to participate in evaluation. We have built a UI tool to display a human written article and an article from our model and would score both. The UI tool has been built to streamline the evaluation process, even including the snippets of cited sources relevant. We have monetary compensation available for participants.

While none of the articles produced by our model are intended to be published There is potential for the tool to be integrated as part of New Page Patrol efforts, perhaps as a comparison between draft articles our the models outputs to see where improvement could be necessary. There is more information in our m:Research:Wikipedia type Articles Generated by LLM (Not for Publication on Wikipedia) Talk area.

If you are interested please fill out this form.

We are beginning Evaluation currently so potentially only earlier responders will be able to participate as funding is limited.

Thank you Terribilis11 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]