 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Ideas for reducing WP:NPP's backlog. I do not necessarily endorse all these ideas, this essay is just to record every idea I see.
Anyone is welcome to edit this essay and add ideas.
Reduce queue size
edit- By letting the borderline articles that no one wants to mark as reviewed or AFD fall off the back of the queue after X months - This is probably what we will do if the NPP queue gets out of control and other efforts like recruitment and backlog drives don't fix things.
- By having more users be autopatrolled
- Taking autopatrol away from admins was likely a mistake. Adds a bunch of articles that are almost never problematic to the queue unnecessarily.
Partly done NPPs applying for other people they see doing good work and high volume work to be autopatrolled at WP:PERM/AP. User:I dream of horses did a bunch of these in December 2021–January 2022. User:Buidhe did a couple in May 2022.- Systematically recruit/invite promising users to apply for autopatrolled. (Idea by User:Schierbecker)
- By automating certain actions with bots
Done Certain redirects can be automatically marked as reviewed by bots, e.g. User:DannyS712 bot
- Mark as reviewed edit warred redirects
- Certain problematic article types can be automatically moved out of the queue. Ways to move out of the queue include draftifying, CSD, AFD.
- Automatically draftify articles with no sources?
- Automatically draftify articles that are 1-2 sentences long?
- Tag copyvios for CSD G12?
Increase the number of reviewers
edit- By marketing NPP recruitment and its backlog issues better
- Via newsletters (WP:MMS) to NPPs and non-NPPs
- Via watchlist messages. For example, by advertising backlog drives via watchlist messages.
- Via new sections at central pages such as WT:NPPR, WT:AFCR, village pumps
- Via headers at central pages such as WT:NPPR, WT:AFCR
- Via an event on the Wikipedia discord server (GAN backlog drive did this)
- Encouraging inactive NPPs to give up their user right doesn't seem like a great idea. That adds an extra bureaucratic step (applying for NPP at WP:PERM/NPP) in case these trained folks ever want to go back to doing NPP.
- Simplifying notability guidelines could result in increased recruitment of new NPPs and quicker onboarding.
- The current notability guideline pages are too verbose. Useful information is buried in walls of text or outdated. Editor's strong feelings on the topic of notability keep these pages outdated, and changes tend to be reverted.
- More precision in notability guidelines. That way everyone is on the same page. There would be less arguing and less confusion.
- For example, why can't we specify that GNG requires exactly 2 or exactly 3 sources?
- For NPROF, why can't we specify a precise Google h-index or a precise # of citations that qualifies for inclusion?
- For certain NSPORT criteria, why can't we specify an exact # of games played? 1, 3, etc.
- Criteria that are not used frequently could be deleted, to simplify the process. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals criteria #1 and #2 are not commonly used. WP:NBOOK #3, #4, #5 are not commonly used. WP:NFILM #2, #4, #5 are not commonly used.
- More examples could be given. For example, WP:ANYBIO #1 vaguely says "This person has received a well-known or significant award or honor". In practice, this means a country's highest military award or a country's highest civilian award, for example Presidential Medal of Freedom or Medal of Honor, but no examples are given at all. In fact, someone should make a list and the award should be required to be on that list. GBE/KBE/CBE qualify, but OBE/MBE do not. Where is this documented? Discovering this through reading dozens of AFDs or constantly peppering NPP gurus with questions is not efficient.
- Sending messages to suitable individuals via SQL queries and manual filtering, see User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPP and User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list. Partly done with considerable success by Insertcleverphrasehere in 2018/2019.
- Eliminate detailed triaging and just do basic automated triaging using the SQL query, then MMS everyone on Insertcleverphrasehere's list. Let them know that we really need help at NPP and encourage them to apply at WP:PERM/NPP. Triaging can be done when they apply. Having a backlog at WP:PERM/NPP would be a good problem to have.
- Being less strict with WP:PERM/NPP applications. More discussion here.
- Auto assigning the NPP perm to certain qualified folks, e.g. greater than a certain # of edits, graduates of NPP school, or a large # of undeleted articles. More discussion here.
Increase the number of reviews
edit- Backlog drives (November 2021, June 2022) temporarily increase the number of reviews (and probably the number of reviewers)
Retain existing reviewers better
edit- With good treatment and support
- By having enough active reviewers that the pressure on superstar high volume reviewers such as User:Onel5969, User:John B123, and User:Rosguill is reduced, hopefully avoiding burnout
Increase the speed of reviewing
edit- By shifting some burdens to the article writers
- Eliminate WP:BEFORE. Require that, for all articles created after X date, that all GNG/SNG passing references must be in the article.
- By reducing the complexity of the NPP flowchart/requiremenets/workflow
- Done Making the last 4 steps of the flowchart (the gnoming steps such as adding maintenance tags, adding categories, adding WikiProjects, adding stub tags) optional, or deleting them
- Banning draftification after 90 days was likely a mistake. Increases workflow complexity (an extra fork for if over 90 days/if under 90 days) for little gain. Increased complexity = slower reviewing.
- By writing practical guides for reviewers
- By encouraging reviewers to use CSD, draftify, BLAR, and merges more, because often reviewers fail to spot certain appropriate opportunities to use these, and being able to spot and use these correctly speeds up reviewing.