Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

NPP backlog

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54

Wikipedia talk:Page Curation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard: 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 20.

Oda Nobumitsu <— Genuinely what should I do when I encounter an article like this, it all over the place, code everywhere and linking to Wikipedia itself (not allowed). I’m not sure whether I should wait before turning it into a draft, put any tags (not even sure if there is a tag for messed-up formatting) or just leave it? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I personally would have moved it to a draft, where the person could spend the time to address the necessary issues before it would even be ready for the mainspace. It seems the article had other issues too (LLM, grammer, etc). Another editor has moved it to a draft and left a comment on the user's talk page here.

In situations where I am unsure what to do with an article, I have also found it helpful to add the article's page to my watchlist. That way, I can see what a more experienced editor would do with it later and learn from them. Just a little tip, that could become very useful later! Nyxion³⁰³💬 Talk 15:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, one quick question, should I have moved it to draftspace even when it was t past the 60 minute window? Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

The draftification window is 90 days, not 60 minutes. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean when I last draftified a page I was told that I should wait 60 Minutes after the last constructive edit before draftifying Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's WP:NPPHOUR: you should wait at least an hour after the last major edit before PROD, AfD, (most) CSD, or draftifying to ensure it's not still being actively worked on. You can tag immediately if it's a copyright violation, attack page, or vandalism/hoax page though. HurricaneZeta^C 15:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok good to know. Thanks Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I jumped in to try and sort it out, and it is much worse than you thought. When I just tried to draftify it, that was bounced because there was already a page Draft:Oda Nobumitsu created by @JohannKarl847. (I am deliberately including the originator in the discussion as it is impolite not to in my opinion.) I therefore draftified it to Draft:Oda Nobumitsu 2. I then checked the editor's history. They are a new user so we should not be too nasty. However, they have a recent history of AI created and unsourced pages which have been declined or draftified. It is important that they understand that this is creating work for other volunteer editors.

I therefore left a level 3 warning on the page of @JohannKarl847. If this behavior continues someone should escalate to a level 4, and it may be time to put in an admin request to have them blocked for Wikipedia:NOTHERE behavior. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I see, very odd why they would have two of the same draft, and try to move it into mainspace multiple times. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Not very odd, it happens all the time. I used the "2" addition which someone else told me about some time ago.

N.B., the behavior of @JohannKarl847 has been worse than I thought, for at least 2 other pages they removed AfD declination tags. I think this is a case of 2.99 strikes so far. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Very common. People are sneaky and don't care if their page is riddled with errors as long as it isn't a draft aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I remember this. I know what I would have done but I deliberately skipped it to see what others would make of it. We are hoping that some upcoming discussion with the WMF will bring about some onboarding changes that will prevent articles such as this from even reaching the New Page Feed from the get go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s great, that will be very helpful, I’ve always thought there should be a bit more NPP regulations The Grenadian Historian (Aka. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a) (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think my Page Curation is bugging, the next button keeps looping the same 10 articles I clicked on. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you try a hard reload of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue (along with reviewing an article sending me to the very front of the queue). Hard reload doesn't fix it, nor does switching to a different browser. (directed here from discord) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be time to post a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Will take a look, reports have been flaky, but lets see if I can bang my head at this. Can one of y'all open a phab ticket? Sohom (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a pretty barebones ticket and subscribed you to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

See should be fixed by Thursday (assuming things go to plan) Sohom (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Phab tickets are the best way to contact PageTriage maintainers. I don't have VPT watchlisted, and I have this page watchlisted but don't always check it daily, but I get an email whenever you create a Phab ticket and tag it PageTriage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@ARandomName123, have you ever tried a mw:safemode test? It can help identify the source of the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Safe mode doesn't seem to help. It's inconsistent as to when it decides to start looping, and I was able to go through a good chunk of pages before running into a loop from Ikawaihere, Nagashima Shigeo Kinen Iwana Baseball Field, Uday Narang, 4-Phenylbutylamine, Isakhan Ashurov, Ants Viires, Hema Hari Prasanna Pegu, Sarah Chandler Coates and back to Ikawaihere. Reviewing Ikawaihere does not break the chain, it just continues but skips it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I was interested to see how a two-month drive worked after my ambivalence last month and I have some observations at the halfway point. On the positive side:

• We have 150 participants who have done at least one review, more than (unless I am missing something?) any since 2018. This is great! Thanks to all who have participated. Of these, 140 have done at least one article review.
• Participants are really crushing the oldest parts of the backlog. I usually work in this area, and it's slower, because these are all the most questionable notability cases, the hardest to BEFORE or have other odd features that require extra care. However, I'm really pleased to see how many of the old articles have been reviewed. The oldest batch of unpatrolled articles is now about 7 months old, down from 10 at the beginning of the drive.

On the concerning side:

• We have reviewed 18,074 articles, less than each of the previous (very good) drives in September (19,006) and more than in May (17,313) and January (16,822). January '26 has seen an average of 129 article reviews per article participant, lower than in September (162), higher than in May (124) and a little lower than January '25 (132). Despite this work, unlike after previous drives, the backlog does not seem to be shrinking significantly. We kept up with the 15,000+ articles created in January and knocked a few thousand off the unreviewed pile -- but the chart shows the backlog grew faster than usual since the last drive (including a couple thousand articles that had to be unreviewed afterward). Usually in a backlog drive we're cutting the unreviewed number sharply, but the curve flattened out much sooner. I'm guessing this is an issue a lower rate of reviews being done between drives, so hopefully new participants catch the bug and participate more consistently throughout the month. Perhaps some people are waiting to participate more in February, though, so I will hold my final judgment until we see if the backlog falls more.
• When I patrol the front of the queue, I am finding a greater share of articles than ever with obvious LLM tells. However, the LLMs are getting better at providing citations that exist, so our G15 grounds are not as easy to obtain -- even though we cannot trust that the LLM is interpreting the sources correctly. Indeed, when I spot-check them, I find often that they fail verification, but they don't qualify for G15. Discussion perhaps for another time, but I suspect new page reviewers are going to need better and quicker tools to deal with the accelerating wave of LLM sludge that is getting thrown at Wikipedia, or else I fear that we will burn reviewers out.

Just a few thoughts -- now, back to work. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminder to everyone: There are some awards that are for the whole 2-month period, but there are also awards for February-only. So, do join in even if you weren't able to do much in January. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It sucks to see that I couldn't participate in this one-of-a-kind drive. But I am proud so far with the heck of wonderful reviews y'all have done so far. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I came across an article which pass Wikipedia:NSONG but the problem was the current version was first reverted in November last year for Ban Evasion, a new similar Temporary Account restored it, my question is that seeing that its a similar IP should I revert it to the previous version. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 07:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Those TAs aren't blocked as socks of the master, so it's not necessarily ban evasion. If you think it passes NSONG, just make sure it doesn't have any other critical defects and mark it as reviewed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks it's already marked as reviewed by another editor. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 12:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Rookie question, I'm afraid: but I've been reviewing an article that contains quite a number of redlinked terms followed by links to French Wikipedia (eg: Comptoir Lyon-Alemand [fr]): is this usual? I've just not seen it here before. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Probably from Template:Interlanguage link. When I see an article full of ILLs to the same other language, I assume it's been created as a translation from the relevant non-english Wikipedia, which (if true) has to be acknowledged to prevent copyright violation.--Northernhenge (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Northernhenge: I'll bear it in mind. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a new reviewer and before starting to make any reviews, I would like to know how do I know when to Decline or Reject a draft, and how to do so. I have tried to find help articles about that without success. if there is any, please tell me. Also, if there are more precise guidelines to follow when reviewing drafts, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you for your time,

Maëlyshouin. Maëlyshouin (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not a new page reviewer, your 62 edits is below the 500 typically required and you never requested NPP rights, which is why you cannot review pages or decline/reject drafts. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer @Aesurias. This was part of the doubts I had since I had seen that information. So I'm just registered in the WikiProject Articled for creation/Participants to help with the backlog so as to edit them and stuff? Maëlyshouin (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to do work with drafts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants if that's something that in future you'd eventually like to be involved in. Improving drafts is also important and rewarding – much more satisfying than rejecting them.--Northernhenge (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Maëlyshouin, you can't review drafts without the script. You'll need more experience before you can get access though - I suggest participating in WP:AFD and/or creating new articles on notable topics and reviewing the WP:GNG. Once you're ready and have developed a good understanding of notability, you can request access at WP:PERM/AFC. HurricaneZeta^C 14:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

If I am patrolling a new page, and the edits I make while patrolling it are substantial enough that I am now the main contributor, am I allowed to mark it as patrolled? For example if I blank and redirect a page, do I patrol the redirect? Or if I convert a redirect to a dab? lp0 on fire () 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine to review anything the software lets you. The software will let you review anything, with the exception of pages where you are the page creator AND you are not autopatrolled. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

So, I was reviewing some redirects when I came across Abdramane Konaté, a page which redirects to an article on the Arabic Wikipedia. Are those allowed? CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@CabinetCavers: I don't think that's permitted. Redirects to sister projects in mainspace should use a specialized redirect template, and no such template exists for redirects to Wikipedia in another language. lp0 on fire () 16:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

There is now an RfC going on, we should submit our opinions there. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 16:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Where is the RfC? I'd have thought WP:SOFTREDIR covers it by saying These soft redirects should be avoided because they are generally unhelpful to English-language readers.. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I think they meant RfD. lp0 on fire () 17:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_5#Abdramane_Konaté. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham I think it means RfD, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_5#Redirects created by Rvolta. There they have agreed to G7 all the redirects. HurricaneZeta^C 17:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So sorry. I'm so used to AfC that I mistyped. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Not to worry, easily done. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A YouTuber named Jonny RaZeR (https://www.youtube.com/@JonnyRaZeR/) recently published a video (https://preservetube.com/watch?v=o_EFdVJpBpI) in which he encourages his fans to make and publish sources like books and articles about himself. The video is scheduled to be deleted 48 hours after its publication. In the video, he tells his fans to create sources but to include small pieces of innocuous misinformation within them to "prank" Wikipedia. I'm just putting this message here so that if any new page patrollers come across a page about this guy, they can be aware of this scheme. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, you may want to link AFC to this page as AFCers are more likely to be the ones coming into contact with these new articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks asilvering, I wasn't quite sure where to mention this. I will post this on WT:AFC as well. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having seen the type of stuff his fans have done in the past (if anyone remembers the "the waffle house has found its new host" phenomenon from a few years ago, it was this guy), I wouldn't take this lightly. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have joined his Discord server and can give the invite link to anyone curious. He has a full list of sources that people will use to add false info about him (starting tomorrow)

The links are as following:

• https://jonny-razer-dev.base44.app/
• https://thetab.com/2023/01/17/the-waffle-house-has-a-new-host-meme-explained-tiktok-trend & https://archive.thetab.com/2023/01/17/the-waffle-house-has-a-new-host-meme-explained-tiktok-trend-290216
• https://sites.google.com/view/jonnyrazer/home
• https://medium.com/@vanheerdenodin25/jonny-razor-the-biography-of-a-century-5d8b04328ed1

I will check in on it soon for updates, but is there a way we can edit filter these links? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. I'll grab an edit filter admin to have a look. -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

2 more links have been added, I have created a subsection below to track them all easily aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Jonny Razor has already been declined. Is there anyway to pre-emptively salt "Jonny RaZor", "Jonny Razor", "Jonny RaZer" & "Jonny Razer" or no? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but that only works when editors care very much about the article being at the exact correct title. In this case they'll just pick more disruptive ones if we stop them from creating these. Better to keep them where we can see them. -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a log-only filter to keep tabs on them more easily? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as the Tab article was written in 2023, that one might be a genuine source. Obviously it's not enough to establish notability, but that one in particular doesn't seem to have been created as part of the scheme. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Already declined one draft. I don't expect these to stop anytime soon. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Voyager (1989 video game) <— I recently moved this page to the draftspace due to there being no sources (at the time of my move), which is allowed. Then I was informed by the creator that he had added sources (from various offline magazines), I recommended him adding more information to the page, which doesn’t detail much about the game, development or frankly anything else but the genre and the positive reviews (the positive reviews being the only sources regarding the game). The user then asked me to move the page back to the mainspace invoking Wp:DraftObject however in that policy it advises the mover to wait until a proper consensus on the talk page or AFD page is reached, therefore I bring the discussion here to ask some un-involved users for their opinion regarding the matter. Thank you to anyone in advance. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the draft object wording back to how this worked for many years. I think a recent edit changed the procedure without enough discussion. In general I'd say let anyone move it back to mainspace without edit warring the move, then the page can be re evaluated by npp now that the citations are fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the wording, that makes much more sense. I will leave it for now unless another user has something else to say. Thanks for your help Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the best way to handle a review for an article like History of the Island of Taiwan Perspective (currently the oldest one in the queue) since there's consensus to merge but the merge itself has not yet been carried out? I don't have the expertise or time to merge it myself, but it's just floating there unreviewed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

When reviewing a previously deleted article, it would be super helpful review the content that had been discussed and deleted. I assume that content exists somewhere in the bowels of WP. Is that something that could be made available to NPP reviewers? I think it'd save significant reviewer time. Thanks & trout me as needed. WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 00:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Widgetkid You'll need to be an admin (or vetted by the WMF, but I doubt they'll give that to just any regular editor) to view deleted stuff, so no. You can however ask recently active admins directly, on on IRC or Discord. HurricaneZeta^C 00:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't see that changing anytime soon either. If you'd like more details see WP:DELACCESS and maybe even WP:VDC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(P.S. For interest, looks like the number of people granted access without being an admin, ever, is still single digits, and no-one at all currently. -Kj cheetham (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC))

Thanks - that certainly makes a world of sense for the vast majority of deleted content! I wonder if there's a way to make just deleted versions of unreviewed recreated articles visible to just NPP reviewers. Sounds complicated, but maybe there are wizards for this sort of thing around? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If I wanted to suggest that somewhere productive, thoughts on where I should/could go with that? WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 00:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a non-starter. You'll just have to run for admin. :) -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ is the place to request changes to software. But I agree with Asilvering that it's a non starter. This isn't as simple as making a code change because there are legal considerations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There may be a copy of the deleted article on the internet archive. I don't know what algorithm it uses for archiving WP articles, some articles get archived some don't. You may strike lucky. --John B123 (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Widgetkid, I was a prolific patroller, NPP coordinator, and admin for many years. Nowadays in semi-retirement and as a non-admin, I do not find it a great inconvenience to ask a friendly admin to take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I was recently asked by SaTnamZIN to mentor them in NPP. I'm a fairly new reviewer myself, so I worry this would be overstepping and I might pass on any bad habits that I haven't yet been corrected on. My questions are:

1. Am I experienced enough to do NPPSCHOOL?
2. If not, will someone else volunteer?

Satnam is an interesting case because I think they understand notability fairly well but need to work on the other aspects of NPP, whereas usually the issue is understanding notability. lp0 on fire () 13:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You are fairly new, but if you're willing to take on this task I don't see why we should stop you. I'm not sure we have that many folks available to do this kind of mentoring, so your willingness to help is greatly appreciated. If you're not sure about anything, look it up and do some reading, or ask a more experienced editor.

Re: understanding notability before the other aspects – I was pretty similar, I got my start in Wikipedia's "backend" via AfD, so for a while I was pretty confident with notability, but had no idea about any CSDs. I think you're right that that's easier to pick up than the other way 'round. Toadspike [Talk] 14:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Feel free also to direct them towards the Discord, where we do a lot of informal mentorship. -- asilvering (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you taken NPPSCHOOL yourself? Most of the NPPSCHOOL instructors use a standardized curriculum, and experience doing that curriculum as a student would be helpful for teaching it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No I haven't, and I wasn't aware of that. Would you recommend I leave it to someone else, or try my best with the limited experience I have? lp0 on fire () 09:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you could informally mentor this individual. But to call it npp school, I think you would probably need to go through npp school yourself, and then use that curriculum. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. lp0 on fire () 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've just reviewed a page that was generally well-sourced but had some references to ancestry.com so I tagged the article as containing original research and left a note for the article creator. In this case, there were plenty of other sources given so I marked the article as reviewed. If, however, a new article largely depended on its creator doing original genealogical research, what would be the appropriate course of action? I would certainly tag it as original research but should I then leave it, draftify it, or (unlikely) mark it as reviewed and trust the problem gets sorted out over time? --Northernhenge (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I would tag it (without marking as reviewed) if there were enough sources to conclude that the topic is notable, and draftify otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems to have vanished, perhaps since the issue earlier today. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: All userscripts appear to be temporarily disabled. I found some details about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia in read-only mode?, but I'm not sure if it's being discussed elsewhere. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the centralized thread is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Today's outage. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I recently had Merely (definition) deleted under G8 in a Redirect for discussion. I was wondering if none of the criteria in WP:CSD applies. Would you go to WP:RFD? CostalCal (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion is for redirects that do not meet CSD but might be problematic for some reason. You can nominate a redirect at RFD if you think it should be deleted, or if you think some other action should be taken (retarget, disambiguate, refine, etc.) and you are either unsure of the best solution or you think it might be controversial. Sometimes it is determined during the discussion that CSD do apply and it is speedy deleted instead. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! CostalCal (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello friends. What did we think of the two month backlog drive compared to our normal one month format? Did reviewers like the two month format more or less than the one month format? And any other thoughts about it? I would say the data currently suggests that the two month format did not result in an increase in the # of articles reviewed, and so I am currently leaning towards not doing this format again. But if folks love it or something, I would certainly be willing to reconsider. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Two months was indeed pretty tiring, the momentum and will to continue through the second month was not as strong as the first.

I will take this opportunity to pitch another similar idea, what about a half month drive, but more often than the current cadence? Here, more often can just mean one more than the existing in a given year, so no pressure to make it a common occurrence. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors does blitz drives, so we can take and analyse some data from them. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I found it got a bit tiring near the end, though I think I personally reviewed more than I would have in a one-month drive - I set a personal goal of at least 100 points/week which helped motivate me. That said, I got a bit burned out and have been taking a short break from NPP, so it's hard to say what the net effect will be on my overall reviewing output. I like Bunnypranav's idea of NPP blitz drives; maybe GOCE has some data about how effective those are. Zzz plant (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Two months was, in my opinion, too long to remain motivated, I think I would have completed more overall during a one month drive by setting my weekly targets higher, like Zzz plant above, I need a break after the last drive. The blitz mentioned by Bunnypranav sound like it would be worth trying. Josey Wales ^Parley 15:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I am interested in thoughts/suggestions about how to handle possible COI or worse (UPE/block evasion) by an IP. I have seen a fair number of instances where I have been suspicious, one very recently which I have tagged with COI at User talk:~2026-14941-00. (There was a pattern of page creations for the same focus area in a university.) I also reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but that got bounced by @Voorts as I did not discuss it first with the user. While I guess that is technically a valid reason, temporary IP pages are likely to vanish so I have to wonder.

Suggestions for the future please. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The suggestion is to discuss it with the editor on their talk page before jumping to a central noticeboard. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle has some templates you can use for this purpose, also. -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Such as...? Ldm1954 (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

{{uw-coi}}, {{uw-paid1}}, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

But...talk pages for IPs are deleted when they expire. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

No, they're not! Plus, the talk pages are per temporary account, not per IP, and they only expire after 90 days, so that gives them time to see the warning. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

My experience of leaving messages on IP talk pages is you never get a response. Whilst I understand the logic of trying to discuss with another user on their talk page before going to a noticeboard, in practical terms it doesn't work when dealing with an IP.--John B123 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

TA editors and people with COIs are entitled to the assumption of good faith and the courtesy of communication prior to dragging them to a central noticeboard. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@John B123 Since IPs have been replaced with TAs, yes, leaving messages on IP talk pages will no longer get you a response. But TAs get pinged when you leave a message on their talk page, a major improvement over the previous system. And for administrative purposes, we should (almost) always warn before blocking, whether TA or not. Toadspike [Talk] 22:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, next time I will go ahead with the standard twinkle, although I agree with @John B123 that this is not the best. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The guidelines for pretty much every centralized noticeboard require that you try to communicate with an editor on their talk page before opening a discussion. TAs are no different from editors with accounts regarding providing guidance and/or warnings. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I am unable to actually review or publish new pages because the Curation Toolbar is just gone. No button it is hidden behind, It is just gone. I have no idea how to get it back, and my attempts to work around it have failed. I have not seen anyone else mention something like this bar a brief discussion from 2013 that proved unhelpful. If anyone has any idea why this has happened and how to fix it please inform me. Minnastronomer (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@Minnastronomer, from Wikipedia:New pages patrol § Technical details

• Closing and re-opening the toolbar – If you close the Page Curation toolbar completely, by first minimizing the toolbar using the top toolbar button, then clicking the top X icon on the mini-toolbar, it will disappear completely. In this situation, to get the toolbar back, you need to click "Open Page Curation" in the left menu, in the "Tools" section.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

You've correctly identified the problem, however "Open Page Curation" is not something I have to click on in either the left menu or tools section. Minnastronomer (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It’s not in my left menu (I don’t know why the instructions say that), but it does appear in my tools menu when I’m looking at a new page. When I’m looking at “normal” pages, the tools menu has a link to “add [it] to the new pages feed”, and it looks as if that link gets replaced with “open page curation” when you’re on a new page and you don’t have the Page Curation toolbar visible. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It does not appear in my tools menu for any pages. My permissions could have been accidentally set for one day instead of one month or something silly like that. Is anyone able to check? Minnastronomer (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmm well you seem to have the relevant user right: Special:UserRights/Minnastronomer. Maybe try logging out and in again? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you very much, No idea why that happened but it is fixed now. Minnastronomer (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know why the instructions say that. That's where it is for the skin Vector 2010. I'll edit the page to be clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reviewing redirects during the January-February drive. The redirect backlog is only growing and growing at a rapid pace since the end of the drive. From my experience, redirects take way less time to review than articles. I believe that I'd be extra motivated to participate in the drive if it included redirects. What do you think? CostalCal (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 i agree. Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 09:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Before confirming details of the May drive, is there going to be a retrospective of the January-February drive? As that itself was a bit of an experiment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to chime in at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Two month backlog drive - debrief. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Certainly, I reviewed a lot of redirects in the Jan-Feb drive and will do more. This has my support. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 11:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)