Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024

Next NPP drive in early 2024?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The October NPP drive significantly reduced the articles backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431. These are remarkable results, and we all did an excellent job. Despite our best efforts to reduce the backlog, there remains a substantial backlog for both articles and redirects, and it continues to grow rapidly. As the October drive is very recent, organizing a new drive right now isn't feasible. Therefore, we should plan the next drive for March or April. Additionally, it might be beneficial to schedule backlog drives at specific times in a year, such as one in March, one in July or August, and one in November. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

One in March-ish sounds good to me. Not sure yet about prefined ones, as in the past it seems only in response to an backlog backlog. Worth thinking about though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Article backlog increased by 2,235 and the redirect backlog increased by 4,306 in just 14 days. If this rate continues, there may be approximately 17,000 articles and around 30,000 redirects by March. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there, say, 5-year charts of the backlog level and a list of drives somewhere? Might be interesting. Don't want to overanalyse things though. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea on scheduling another backlog drive as soon as practical. March sounds good to me. I suggest we give up on the redirect backlog and do article backlog drives from now on. Articles are more important. Splitting our efforts between both articles and redirects is likely to dilute our limited available bandwidth and result in neither reaching zero. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of the stuff getting created is so borderline, it's hard to review anything. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I have enormous sympathy for this POV... And FWIW (bear in mind I don't really go in for 'drives'), I'd say January is more timely. March, as @DreamRimmer points out, will see the Augean Stables overflowing... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think January is ideal, but if its in March, April, it will be 4k bigger. We really need to get it under control as soon as. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

As Novem mentioned earlier, if we focus solely on articles in the next drive, I believe we can reduce the backlog. However, this might lead to a significant increase in redirects, and we might need to organize a separate drive in April for them. The idea for January isn't bad either; we can focus on articles in January and redirects in March. Considering everyone's views on this idea is crucial because we recently conducted a drive and initiating another one soon may dampen enthusiasm for the drive. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think moving the backlog drive to January is a good idea. Yes, we run risk of burnout by doing drives more often, but the state of the backlog calls for taking that risk, I think.

I think we should de-prioritize redirect patrolling until we hit zero backlog for articles. If things don't change (if a super reviewer similar to Onel5969 or John B123 doesn't emerge), I don't think we'll have time to do a redirect backlog drive next year at all. cc Rosguill. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think January gives enough time to recover over the holidays. Honestly though, I got pretty burnt out after the last backlog drive and have not returned to my usual volume of reviews yet.

To address the increasing backlog, there's a consensus to organize an article drive as soon as possible (in January). So, I'm currently getting everything ready for the January drive and I'm excited to coordinate it. If anyone wants to team up as a coordinator, I'd love to have you on board! – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer. I’d definitely be willing to assist with the coordination of the 2024 drive, whenever it may be. I’m thinking it’s probably best to wait until February as the last drive was still pretty recent. Thanks! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi DreamRimmer, Novem Linguae and Illusion Flame. I'm also willing to assist with the coordination of the upcoming drive. Thilsebatti (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Once Novem confirms, I will add you, or you can add yourself. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Thilsebatti. I think we might be full on coordinators for this particular backlog drive. Sounds like all 3 coordinators from the previous backlog drive want to coordinate again, and I think out of fairness we need to give them the spots. Hope that's OK. Thank you for understanding. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with that:) Thilsebatti (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Points

I propose awarding 1 point per article review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think is straight forward and there's no other point system we should really be considering. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Re-Reviews

The re-review process is the same as before, but I believe we should discourage NPPs who are on trial and have only been an NPP for a month. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)– DreamRimmer (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I say we prohibit NPPs on a trial from doing re-reviews and strongly discourage new NPPs from re-reviewing pages. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Illusion Flame, but at the very least what DreamRimmer proposed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects?

Will redirect reviews be included in this drive like the October drive or not? greyzxq ^talk 23:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Greyzxq: Not this time, no. This is specifically an article backlog drive. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! greyzxq ^talk 23:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

CSD

Are CSD'ed articles accounted for in the drive at all? They're not marked as reviewed (for good reason), but it's certainly good for the backlog. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think they are counted as reviews? (At least that's what Josh told me) Anyway, seems like it should count as a review (since you did "review" the article) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, @WikiOriginal-9, I think there might be a misunderstanding. Please don't mark CSDed articles as reviewed. The key point is that if you tag any article with CSD and it gets deleted with the CSD rationale, then it will be counted as 1 point. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Updating problem?

I've done 34 article reviews earlier today, but the leaderboard still says that I have done 1. The bot is still updating regularly, but for some reason my point count is not being updated. Is there a problem? It worked well for me in the October 2023 drive. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 18:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. Maybe a bug somewhere with the bot? The only thing the counted for me so far is the sole draftification I did, not the pages that I had reviewed. – robertsky (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tol: If my suspicion is right, the bot's code needs to be tweaked a bit to fix this. Please see this previous discussion for the (probable) problem and how to fix it. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 (CC: @Praseodymium-141, @Robertsky): Yep; that looks like the culprit. Thank you for letting me know. This is actually very useful (completely removing the redirect-determination problem!) — but does unfortunately break the bot's count. I'll work on a fix and get that up shortly. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 07:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

completely removing the redirect-determination problem! Well, sadly not completely, since you still have to count patrol logs (as opposed to review logs), where this differentiation isn't there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agh; thanks for pointing this out as well. This makes things a bit more complicated, but I believe I've fixed the issue. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 10:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Alright; I've updated the bot, and the numbers should have been corrected with the last run. I now have it set up so that, for PageTriage (Page Curation) patrols, it relies on the PageTriage logs to determine redirect status (which should be guaranteed accurate at the time the page was reviewed). For basic (non-PageTriage) patrols, it still uses the previous redirect determination method: if it exists, check if it's a redirect; if it's been deleted, check to see if the title was most recently created as a redirect. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 10:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

BLAR

Today, I came across an instance where it made the most sense to blank and redirect a page. For the sake of (meaningless) backlog points, I'm curious how something like that could/should be counted (now or in the future). If I had marked the original article as reviewed, it may be considered a bad review, but if I marked the redirect as reviewed, it's not counted as reviewing an article... Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, I'm so sorry I hadn't responded to this, I must have missed it while I was away on vacation! Unfortunately we don't have a way to track when you convert articles to redirects, so do we not factor that in for points. My understanding is that the bot counts points based on the state of the article, not based on the time of review. That means if you review an article and it gets turned into a redirect, you would lose that point. It also works the opposite way, which is why you'll see Danny S712 bot III show up with article reviews on Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

CSD log

Are non-mainspace (e.g. draft) CSD nominations counted in this drive？Thanks! Timothytyy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Timothytyy, I just got on and I'm working to wrap things up now. I've started a new section below. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Timothytyy/CSD log Timothytyy (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please submit deletion logs

Good morning, the drive has officially ended and that means it's time to submit your deletion logs. This is only applicable if you tag pages for deletion with Twinkle instead of the Page Curation tool. Please provide a link to your CSD and XfD logs and I'll do my best to go through and update the table and streaks appropriately. You will have until February 8, 2024, at 00:00 UTC, to submit these logs Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Kj_cheetham/CSD_log#January_2024 and User:Kj_cheetham/XfD_log#January_2024 (obviously only the mainspace ones). I can't 100% guarantee all were part of my NPP activities, and the GuarantCo CSD was declined. I don't think any of this will impact which barnstars I'd get anyway, but contributes to the stats :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are my logs for proposed deletions and XfD nominations. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's my CSD log. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is my CSD log. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

All logs have been processed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)