This page is forNew Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (invite link)For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.For discussion on topics purely relevant tocoordination tasks, such as backlog drives, please post atCoordination Talk
However, when I click back (using the link in the InfoBox) to the page for Season 11, then click the link in that article's InfoBox for Season 12, it goes to a different page. I moved that one to draft space (it is only one sentence long) but the link the Season 11 InfoBox still goes to the now-draft article and not the "proper" one. Can anyone figure out what is going on? TIA!MurielMary (talk)08:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. The two pages use different types of dots. The existing NPP one uses the ellipsis character: … (try copy and pasting it and you won't be able to copy just one period), whereas Season 1 uses ... (three singular periods together)aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)08:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 12th season omits the ! from the end of "get me out of here", which should be changed.aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)09:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
A bunch of articles which I patrolled recently were later deleted as they had been created by a banned or blocked editor e.g.Nira Devi Khanal. Should I have been checking that creators of the new articles weren't banned or blocked? If so, how do i do that? (I have checked the tutorial page but didn't find any mention of checking for banned and blocked users there). TIA.MurielMary (talk)11:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thursday update issues? When I scroll down inSpecial:NewPagesFeed, normally it loads more pages in chronological order (i.e. showing the next older creations, enabling one to go back through the new pages from the past hours or days). Now though, when I scroll down, the pages that get loaded are the newest ones, leading to duplication (showing the same pages in the list again and again) while disabling the possibility to scroll to older pages. Additionally (and probably related), the datetime shown on the right is no longer the time of creation, but of the latest edit, which is on this page confusing.
After refreshing, it happens again but with different pages, so it seems as if this is somewhat randomly and not something I can easily describe as "look for this page in the list". Doesn't seem to happen near the top, but when you're a few hours down in the list (e.g. now I see it around 04:05). E.g. I now see "Roy (Pokémon horizons)" three times in the list...Fram (talk)10:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, Been a issue on which we've (I, @JSherman (WMF) among other folks) have been working on fixes to over the last few days (and was first reported by @11WB and @Squawk7700 on Discord). A fix was deployed today but that does not appear to have solved the issue. A lot of this comes down to fact that this issue is a pain in the ass to reproduce locally if at all so this might take a hot second to resolve.Sohom (talk)11:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I am currently experiencing exactly what @Fram described, both on mobile and desktop. I am also unable to reply to other editors on talk pages specifically on mobile currently, as it comes up with the pop-up message that says the comment I am trying to reply to has been archived (even when it clearly hasn't).11WB (talk)11:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try hard reloading Special:NewPagesFeed (Ctrl+F5) and see if you still get the bug? This will refresh the JavaScript code with the latest copy. –Novem Linguae(talk)15:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems resolved again for now, scrolled down to the 20th and no obvious duplicates. Thanks. Which leaves us with the new issue I described at the bottom: older pages which get reviewed are suddenly listed at the top of the new pages feed for no obvious benefit.Fram (talk)16:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I scroll down the page for at least a minute, I keep seeing the same pages. Also, I'm not sure why this one made it to the top while a very old draft article was declined; it's confusing.Kajmer05 (talk)17:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try hard reloading Special:NewPagesFeed (Ctrl+F5) and see if you still get the bug? This will refresh the JavaScript code with the latest copy. –Novem Linguae(talk)17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the date and time not being in order, that is a deliberate change atT412014 to better surface BLARs in the front of the queue and see the "actual" back of the queue. If there are concerns regarding that change, feel free to post on phab ticket (or here/WT:NPR) we are open feedback on that change if there is consensus otherwise.Sohom (talk)11:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't post on phabricator, some (not all!) of the gatekeepers there are extremely unpleasant people to deal with. This seems like a bad idea to me, and goes wrong anyway. At the moment, I seeAna de Narváez de Caro listed at 10:42, but it had no edits or moves at that moment at all.Coelomera punctaticollis is listed at 07:59 (but directly above de Caro), but it has no edits after 04:42. It marks the time the article was reviewed, which is extremely unclear. Was this change discussed anywhere? Doesn't seem like the kind of change one person should request and then being done without any evidence of prior consensus. At least for the way I work this makes things harder, without any apparent benefit (redirects aren't even shown by default, so this seems like a dubious change for everyone so one edge-case gets easier for some people).Fram (talk)12:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the review date should only be used to figure out it's position in the queue it shouldn't be displayed in the UI to my understanding (if it does, that is a bug/unintended change that we should fix). I will investigate this further!
Regarding the reordering, there have been atleast three tickets asking for similar thingsT329999,T38930 andT157048, I would not say that this is a single person pursuing a fix. I can't point to a onwiki discussion at the moment, but based on a informal discussion I had while reviewing the patch on discord there seemed to be community interest in the patch and no naysayers + retaining the old mode would add tech debt (without too much upside due to the first point).
For what it's worth, I'm okay going either way on this (keeping the old mode around/vs not) and I'd suggest starting a discussion on WT:NPR to get consensus/other opinions!Sohom (talk)12:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Discord discussions are, as far as I am concerned, completely without any merit at all in deciding if something has consensus, support or even merit. There is no reason at all to discuss such things offwiki (or at least to give said discussion any weight here), and I would urge you, when you encounter similar discussions, to inform whoever is there that such things get decided onwiki, not elsewhere. "Retaining the old mode would add tech debt". Prehaps you mean soemthing else, but this sounds like bullshit. Going back to how it was for years until very recently is not "adding tech debt" or else the development of the new order was very ill thought out, if reversing it is not possible.
The three phab tickets seem to ask for different things:
"Allow new page reviewers to order the feed by submitted date" is not about BLARs, but about seeing when a redirect has been turned into an article instead. It also doesn't ask for a new default but for an addition option.
"Moved pages appear with the date of initial creation" Is not about BLARs either, but about pages moved out of draft space / user space. This one would be beneficial.
"Redirects converted into articles should appear in the New Pages Feed indexed by the date of creation and creator of the article, not of the redirect" again isnet about BLARs but the opposite.
Basically, the feed should be in the order of the datetime shown (with obviously each page shown only once), but for a select subset of pages that datetime shouldn't be the date of creation, but the date it was a) moved out of draftspace c.s. or b) turned into an article.
With all due respect, I don't understand the need for profanity, especially towards an administrator who has spent quite a bit of time trying to fix these issues. Discord allows for quicker communication, and I can assure you that discussions that take place on the platform do not count toward any type of consensus on the project. I am not a coder, however I would think that making something simpler rather than more complex, would be the preferred solution. Regardless, thank you @Sohom Datta and @JSherman (WMF) for fixing this issue!11WB (talk)13:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would you describe claims that this can't be turned back to, er, showing the date of creation, because of "technical debt"? They have to change it anyway as the datetime they are now showing is not what was wanted either apparently. But no, the earlier situation, which is technically trivial and lasted for many years, is "technical debt". I have seen this kind of excuses too many times. It sounds better than "we don't want to do this" I guess.
The obvious thing is "revert to the status quo and get consensus for a change". Good luck getting them to do the obvious thing though.Fram (talk)14:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Four points:
"Tech debt" translates to "Maintaining 4 concurrent conflicting modes of sorting the feed is going to be very complicated". It does not mean I am against fixing issues related change.
Yes those 3 tickets were solved, alongside surfacing BLARs and BLAR-warring to the top of the feed
Wrt to the discord discussion, was a technical discussion of "hey do we want to maintain 4 different conflicting modes of sorting the feed as opposed to supporting 2 modes" and based on the comments, technical developers were against maintaining 4 different conflicting implementations (due to the fact that it added tech debt) and the few non-tech folks who opined did not hate the new mode.
Reverting any software change (unlike editing on Wikipedia) is a signficant, multiple people endeavor, consensus is much more lightweight in that context and I'd want thatbefore taking a technical action.
Regarding your point 4: if there was no obvious consensus (onwiki) before the software change, then tough luck that it is a "significant multiple people endeavour". I agree that consensus is something you'ld want "before taking a technical action" indeed.
I have no idea what you mean with "4 different conflicting modes of sorting the feed", the feed was and is sorted by "newest to oldest" or "oldest to newest" by date of creation only, I see no other modes in the options, these are not conflicting, and these have not been changed.
Whathas been changed is the date "displayed" next to the article, which is the date of creation unless the page has been reviewed, in which case it is the date of review, but this is never indicated and makes things confusing. I hope you are not claiming that reverting this to simply showing the date of creation is somehow a huge technical issue?Fram (talk)15:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those 3 tickets and their high # of subscribers is strong evidence that there is consensus for this, which is why I wrote the patch for it and pushed it forward without fresh discussion. So far you're the only one that I am aware of that has objected to it. Will watch this talk page section closely to see if there are more objections. –Novem Linguae(talk)15:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those three tickets are not related to what Sohom claimed (BLARs), and the patch already caused clear issues with the NewPagesFeed. What is the benefit of having a listsorted by one date, butdisplaying another date?Fram (talk)15:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
T329999 was a duplicate with 3 subscribers, including you and two devs. T38930 was a task from 2013, hardly relevant to judge consensus in 2026. 157380 wasn't much better (2017). And none of these talked about the date of review as having any importance. So I don't think these three discussions can be used as any evidence for support forthis change.Fram (talk)15:33, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, things seem to have changedagain. Pages still get the date of review as the date shown, not the date of creation or date of move: but they now alsosorted by date of review, which is completely ridiculous.John Warne Herbert Sr. was created in May 2025 but only reviewed now, why should this suddenly reappear near the top of the Newpagesfeed? What benefit does it have that this is now listed on today's New Pages and not on its actual date?Fram (talk)16:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sohom Datta and I decided this is causing too many bugs (another one was reported today), so we're going to revert everything. Will likely ride the train today then deploy to enwiki on Thursday. Folks may need to hard refresh (Ctrl+F5) Special:NewPagesFeed if they have problems on Thursday. –Novem Linguae(talk)18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Task 38930, which would be a really good improvement, is for moved pages (e.g. from draft) to be listed on the move date, not on the creation date, as now these pages often get buried in the middle of the feed and thus get less scrutiny or only much later. This task is closed and is used as justification for the current issues or as evidence of support for the current situation, but it isn't solved at all. E.g.Nepalese football league system was moved from draft to main today, but is listed on its original creation date (March 2025).Fram (talk)15:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is covered inphab:T412014, by the check box "[] moving from non $wgPageTriageNamespaces to $wgPageTriageNamespaces". I intend to write patches that make ptrp_reviewed_updated more accurate, and this would be one of those patches. –Novem Linguae(talk)15:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this have been tested (and discussed for consensus) before all these rollout - error - patch - error - patch - new issue - will patch someday? If the "enqueued" date isn't the right date for this, then this should have been noted earlier. What you seem to want is "on what date was this most recently created in the main namespace" and "on what date was this most recently changed from a redirect to an article or vice versa in the main namespace", not "on what date was this reviewed", but all of these are part of the enqueued namespace? Well, not all of them, or elseNepalese football league system would be at the top, not at the bottom. So you have picked a date which is unwanted in some cases, and which misses things you do want to see in other cases.Fram (talk)16:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The date should quite obviously be the newly enqueued date and not the original creation date. This might not be true for all such cases yet but improvements and patches for NPP are an ongoing process and have been for the last 14 years. If we were to wait for consensus for every little improvement, then open a Phab ticket, nothing would ever get done at all on this Wikipedia, and NPP would be in an even worse situation than the massive crisis it's in right now. Then we could forget about patrolling new pages altogether and let all the junk in.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)08:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming across unsourced disambiguation pages, and I never know what to do with them, do I put an unsourced tag or do I just press “reviewed” and then leave, for example here is one I found today —>Worms as food and I genuinely have no clue whether I should leave it or do something else, this is by far one of the weirder disambiguation pages I’ve found. Thanks for any help,Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk)15:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyolTranslater Disambiguation pages aren't meant to have sources usually, so don't tag it. See if it meetsWP:DAB andWP:D3, then fix any issues and mark as reviewed. There isWP:G14 as a speedy deletion criterion in narrow cases and you can send the article to AfD if you think the link is tenuous between the articles listed. The worms as food page I would mark as reviewed since it lists articles that are different types of worm-like creatures as food.HurricaneZetaC15:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm hoping someone here might be able to help. An article I submitted through AfC was accepted over a month ago. I thought that was all, but I was told that it still needs to go through a second round of reviews before it's fully processed and appears on Google.
I haven't seen it in search results yet. I've linked other pages to it but I'm not sure if it's live on Wikipedia yet and if there's anything further I should do or if it's just waiting in the queue for a second review step.
To 'appear in search results', a new page reviewer simply needs to click a button and mark it as reviewed. This will happen sometime soon, but there is a large backlog. Given that the article was accepted through AfC, there is no doubt in my mind that they will mark it as reviewed.
Given that you have posted this here, it's likely that a new page reviewer will do the aforementioned sooner rather than later. :)aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)04:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 pagehere.
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💬 Talk15:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that'sWP: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.HurricaneZetaC15:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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 pageDraft: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 toDraft:Oda Nobumitsu 2. I then checked the editor's history. They are a new user so we should not betoo 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.
Very common. People are sneaky and don't care if their page is riddled with errors as long as it isn't a draftaesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)21:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge backlog, and since I was flamed into a crisp for tagging an article incorrectly, someone else will have to review this and hundreds of other pages and articles. Enjoy!Bearian (talk)21:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one (only one) commenter was a bit forthright, but even they said “Since nomination, the article has been substantially improved” so surely that’s a good outcome from your tag. --Northernhenge (talk)23:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian I have seen many of your AfD votes and other comments, and generally your opinions are similar to mine. It would be regrettable if you stopped reviewing STEM, we need experienced editors. I don't see much attack at that AfD compared to many, and the result was in concurrence with your vote.
To do any honest NPP you have to have a fairly thick skin. While many respect an NPP reviewer's comments, including some who ask for (and get) ones help, there are others. I have been threatened with law suits 3 times, had ANI reports twice (both declined as spurious) and my page vandalised once.
Move away from the keyboard, have a stiff drink (or cup-of-char) and relax. About a year ago someone pointed out to me that Wikipedia can be incredibly stressful, and sometimes it is important to take 5 minutes to chill.Ldm1954 (talk)22:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This important item appears to have disappeared from the talk page. For details, seehere. I strongly suggest that those responsible for this project should ensure that key items such as drives are maintained for easy accessibility, at least while they are still open. While some progress has been made in January, the overall results are not sufficient. The event needs to be strongly promoted if it is to achieve the intended results.--Ipigott (talk)15:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I recently made the step up to NPP after a good year or so at AfC. I have a couple of questions related to reviewing new articles;
- If an article is on a topic that is likely to be notable in the future but doesn't have the sourcing to support it, what is the best course of action? (e.g. an election in the far future that hasn't happened yet)
- If an article uses a variety of sources but they are mostly all unreliable, what is the best course of action?
- When seeking new articles to review in the queue, is it better to wait one hour after the page has been published or one hour after the author has made the latest edit?
- If an article only has one or two sources total, should it simply be tagged as needing more references, draftified or nominated for deletion?
I realise most of these questions have likely obvious answers, but I'd rather ask a stupid question than risk mistagging, draftifying or deleting an article that didn't deserve it. Thanks.Rambley[who?]20:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to NPP! To your first question, if sourcing is likely to emerge in the next 6 months, draftify (provided it meets the terms ofWP:DRAFTYES. If not, redirect to a more general topic (say, redirect2034 Donundestan general election toElections in Donundestan with the {{r with possibilities}} template so it can be expanded when coverage is available. If the page creator contests either move, AfD is available to provide a community consensus.
Second question: Tag the page as unreliably sourced, and if it qualifies for draftification, move it to draft with the message "needs more sources to establish notability." If it is problematic from a BLP point of view, blank the offending content.
Third question: If you see the author making a flurry of edits, let the article be for a bit. If the author seems done with the page, even if an hour hasn't passed you can fix it up, tag it as needed, mark it as reviewed -- just don't draftify it or AfD it until the author not edited the page for at least an hour.
Fourth question: Yes, tag it as single source if that's the case. Draftify if eligible per DRAFTYES with the message "needs more sources to establish notability." If not eligible for draftification or draftification is reversed by the page creator, do aWP:BEFORE search. If no qualifying sources for notability are found, send to AfD. If you find qualifying sources, you can either add them yourself or (if in a hurry), tag the page with "sources exist" and mark it as reviewed.
These are just some opinions and personal practices (based on P&Gs) but they are not policies themselves, so you have flexibility to adapt your own, and others may have other ideas. (And be aware draftification is controversial among some editors who see it as a form of backdoor deletion; I've seen it said that NPPers should be doing a BEFORE before draftifying, which is not required. I don't think of it as backdoor deletion, just a way of getting content that's not ready for mainspace into a spot where it can be developed without risk of an immediate AfD.)
(One final piece of advice: If a page has a whiff of LLM to it, open all the references. If you get two or three dead/nonexistent links among them, it's almost certainly an AI hallucinated article and can be speedily deleted under CSD G15. I have not had a single G15 declined when I've included at least two dead links in my nomination comment. G15 is a great tool to help reviewers more quickly deal with the wave of AI slop people are posting to Wikipedia.) Good luck!Dclemens1971 (talk)20:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Dclemens; all I would add is that it's called BEFORE for a reason, and you should do some search before draftifying. If an article cites unreliable sources but you can find reliable ones, there's no need to draftify. (That's my understanding which might not be right; I'm quite new to this myself)lp0 on fire()21:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding future elections, I've just done a Quarry query and then manually retained the results that seem to relate to the UK. I've definitely missed some. I found 94 of them (listed atUser:Northernhenge/elections). Should they all be draftified or is that overkill? Is there a way of draftifying them as a batch? --Northernhenge (talk)21:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is on a topic that is likely to be notable in the future but doesn't have the sourcing to support it, what is the best course of action? (e.g. an election in the far future that hasn't happened yet) - Probably draftify. This is if it fails aWP:BEFORE search (don't just rely on the sources in the article to judge notability). Also keep in mind that something like an un-finished film can still be notable if there areWP:GNG-quality sources on the production process or fan excitement or whatever else is notable during pre-release.
If an article uses a variety of sources but they are mostly all unreliable, what is the best course of action? Do aWP:BEFORE search to see if it's notable. If not, AFD. If it is notable, add appropriate maintenance tags, do other parts of the flowchart, and mark as reviewed. Optional but a good idea if you have time: delete the sentences supported by unreliable sources. CanWP:TNT the article down to a single sentence if needed.
When seeking new articles to review in the queue, is it better to wait one hour after the page has been published or one hour after the author has made the latest edit? This is debatable. I lean towards one hour after the page has been published, since I think one hour after the last edit puts a lot of burden on patrollers to do time calculations. But I think this has come up on this page before and maybe I was in the minority.
If an article only has one or two sources total, should it simply be tagged as needing more references, draftified or nominated for deletion? Tagged. Zero sources should be draftified orWP:BLPPROD. One or two sources can simply be tagged.
Thank you for the advice so far, it’s been real helpful and I am very much appreciative. One final question I forgot to include in my original post:
- Assume you have a stub (talking maybe 3 or 4 sentences and an infobox, being generous) that has no sources; is tagging as unreferenced and stub better than draftification, or the other way around?
If an article has no sources, draftifying is usually fine (or BLPPROD for living people). Taking it to AfD or adding sources yourself are both options as well if you're willing to look for sources.lp0 on fire()21:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume you have a stub (talking maybe 3 or 4 sentences and an infobox, being generous) that has no sources; is tagging as unreferenced and stub better than draftification, or the other way around? Unreferenced articles in mainspace should usually be draftified orWP:BLPPROD.
I wouldn't suggest dumping a brand-new article in the Draft: space on the day it was created. The creator might be trying to add the sources right now, after all.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you don't know what the [Subscribe] feature is, you can enable it atSpecial:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion ("Enable topic subscription"). That will add a [Subscribe] button at the top of each ==Discussion section==. If you click the button to subscribe, then you'll get a notification (same style as Thanks) whenever anyone adds any new comment to that section.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the [ subscribe ] button to follow discussions since the start (~a year) and have had no issues with it. Even with the NPP tools, I haven't had any issues with getting notifications. I have been auto-subscribed to discussions I have started (and sometimes, I think) replied to but that can probably be changed in my preferences though I prefer it the way it is.
Have you tried to disable the [ subscribe ] setting from your preferences, clearing cache/cookies for your browser, and then enabling it the button to see if that might fix the issue?Nyxion303💬 Talk02:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, my bad. I thought you were trying to see if others were having similar problems as you to find a solution. Ignore my comments in that case!Nyxion303💬 Talk12:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort to help! One of the great things about Wikipedians is how many are willing to take some time and trouble to help people with questions like this.WhatamIdoing (talk)16:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in halfway through the two-month backlog drive
I was interested to see how a two-month drive worked aftermy 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.
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)[reply]
I came across an article which passWikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Probably fromTemplate: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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Maëlyshouin, you can't review drafts withoutthe script. You'll need more experience before you can get access though - I suggest participating inWP:AFD and/or creating new articles on notable topics and reviewing theWP:GNG. Once you're ready and have developed a good understanding of notability, you can request access atWP:PERM/AFC.HurricaneZetaC14:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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. -ZLEATǀC04:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
2 more links have been added, I have created a subsection below to track them all easilyaesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)07:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is interesting that his audience are willing to engage in something that is so clearly a vanity project for him. He actually says in the now-deleted video that he just wants to be more famous...and they're all on board for his doomed self-promotion journey? Weird!!!aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)23:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the page creator uses the same name as a person in the Discord server (Julian Casey) who has publicly discussed forging sources. Is it possible for them to be blocked?aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk)23:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@SaTnamZIN: Also, it looks like you've got Twinkle configured to mark articles as reviewed when you tag them for speedy deletion. This should be disabled, as someone can just contest the deletion.lp0 on fire()11:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Moved a page to draft space, a discussion has now arisen regarding said move.
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 invokingWp: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)[reply]
I'vechanged 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)[reply]
When reviewing a previously deleted article, it would be super helpful review the content that had been discussed and deleted. Iassume 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.WidgetKidthis is the way00:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(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))[reply]
Moved fromWT:VPT
Fixed now. –Novem Linguae(talk)15:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks &trout me as needed.WidgetKidthis is the way00:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
