Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Archive

Newsletter poll

Please provide feedback on the newsletter:

Frequency: recently every 4-6 weeks. Is this about right, or would you prefer more frequent (every month) or less frequent (2-3 months)?
Length: considering the 2022 newsletters, is the length about right, or would your prefer shorter or longer.

Responses (brief answer to poll questions)

Oct 2022

(example) about right, about right
about right, about right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency and length are good. Miniapolis 13:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency, ok; more frequent would probably be too much (burden on the writers and on the readers); size, ok (reminder is good, stay focused) - Nabla (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency and length are good. Thanks for your commitment to helping us continue this effort and do good work! --FULBERT (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2023

Both look about right. Thanks for your work. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time-frames are good, length is good. Appreciate all the efforts, thank you. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both the frequency and length are about right. Thanks! Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timing is about right as is the length, thank you for your efforts! Josey Wales^Parley 19:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timing and length is doing it fine for me ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

All ok for me. I wouldn't mind slightly less frequency, but more regular (say every 2 months). More often than 4-6 weeks is too much. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All within the quite acceptable range for me. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All seem fine to me! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Messages moved from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Draft

Reminder message

MB, I still think an interim bulletin wouldn't go amiss. It would show we mean business. Here's a draft anyway, and I'd be inclined to send it on Friday 19n August which would give them a weekend to think about it:

reminder

Hi New pages patrol/Newsletter,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, what do you mean by "which would give them a weekend to think about it"? What's happening on the following Monday? MB 05:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, nothing. Precisely nothing, except that a large number of people especially schoolies and those that work for a living don't do Wiki on workdays, and some of them take care of their kids, walk the dog, go to the pub, or play snooker, and even sleep at night. Not everyone has a time card like mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, It's getting to the point now where NPPers are being swamped by newsletters. They annoy the hat collectors and they just remove themselves from the mailing list, and the rest of them are getting fed up being constantly told to do more. The recent backlog drive is over and done with and there's no need to harp on it. I think we could forgo on a newsletter at the end of this month and instead just send out the message I drafted above now and with no further NPP information. It might actually work for the inactive users - they love signing things. It makes them feel part of the community (that's my anecdotal empirical experience from dozens of RfC anyway). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on a newsletter at the end of the month. The last one was early this month, so perhaps mid-September. I don't agree that NPPers are being "swamped by newletters". There have been three in four months, and they only take a minute or so to read. But I will ask for feedback on this in the next one.

I was thinking that we should slip in a subtle hint about the backlog since 1) we are sending a message already, 2) it could be kept very short, 3) keeping focus on the backlog is probably more important than the letter since as you say, we probably won't even get a reply. I know you disagree. I propose something short like: "If you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated." Novem Linguae, you get to be the tie-breaker again. MB 05:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Happy to do my duty, lol :) I think MB's suggested sentence would be OK to include. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: Like I said somewhere else, I'm happy to draw on my experience by making suggestions, but you two are the coords - it's your call 🙂 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB and Novem Linguae: Within minutes of the message being sent, 11 users signed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and now it is 16. There was one comment on my TP about both the message and the letter itself being "anonymous". MB 00:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first message was only sent on 6 Aug. Chances are there will be 200 signatures by 6 Sept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poking my way around the wiki, and I stumble here. Kudpung, try "chances are there will be 200 signatures by 24 hours from now"

.

I have another 2 cents to hand out! The simply amazing success of this short message suggests (at least to me) that the other newsletters might be too long. Not sure what should be cut, but it definitely seems like people respond better to 3 sentences than to 3 paragraphs. Maybe include less body, and more wikilinks to the relevant information? House Blaster^talk 01:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right HouseBlaster. There are two types of newsletters, those that are purely informative and those that are a call to action. The two features don't combine well in one epistle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When is the next newsletter going out?

MB, when do you tentatively plan to send out the next newsletter? If it isn't expected to be out until October, then we'd need to send out a short mass message informing reviewers about the October Backlog drive, around 24/25 September. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, probably later this month. @Buidhe usually sends a short mass message about the drives. They should probably do that again, even if its just before or after the newsletter because it might not be noticed in the newsletter - see the comment just above by HouseBlaster. MB 03:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As long both aren't out on the exact same day, it should be ok. I'll inform them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I am planning to send out a separate message just about the drive. (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! @MPGuy2824, Buidhe, and MB:, Yet another backlog drive? People will get fed up of them and not bother at all. Wouldn't it be best to cool off for a while and wait for the two current main events: The new BoT, and the effect of the NPP letter to the WMF? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok if the drive isn't your thing, Kudpung, no one is requiring you to participate. The drive spacing is perfectly normal and similar to that used at GAN drives or GOCE drives. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any connection between the letter/election and the drive. I had a discussion with NL awhile ago about drive frequency. There certainly was a noticeable drop-off in reviewing activity after the last one causing the backlog to climb afterwards. I would certainly prefer it to stay flat after a drive while people take a break to recuperate. But even if the net affect is less that the initial drop shows, there is no harm and probably a net positive overall. MB 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, It's not a question whether or not it's 'my thing' - I've already done my bit for NPP over the last 10 years and I won't be participating anyway, but I will be monitoring its effect very closely with a view to gathering more arguments for substantive support from the WMF and the BoT for the Page Triage software in the next round of appeals. Be sure to read the next issue of The Signpost when it comes out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content of the draft for the next news letter is far too long. It's reaching the wingspan of a short essay. The prose could be significantly shortened without losing its information or impact. I would gladly copy-edit it but I wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the initiative to shorten the text somewhat. The names of all the barnstar awardees are not needed. It only embarrasses those who did less and they'll end up doing even less if they think others are already doing most of the work. This is a proven psychological phenomenon. Likewise those who are doing free work at Phab. None of us get thanks for our volunteer work and we're used to it, pushing the envelope is fine but there's no need to keep doing it. The new coord team now has everything well in hand with the WMF and will report back when there is something relevant to say.

Running a poll on the length and frequency of the newsletter to prove me right or wrong might be an idea and I don't mind, but it remains to be seen how many reviewers bother to answer it. We've already seen that out of 750 reviewers most signatures of the 444 came from non-reviewers (how many was it BTW?), despite the several reminders that were sent out.

There has now finally been an official response a full 14 days after publication of the letter from the WMF after bullying them to reply, but there has still not been any official reply from the BoT who have basically complained to us by email about The Signpost article and told us to stop bothering them. This is all just background information and also does not need mentioning in the newsletter.

More reviewers are removing their names from the newsletter list.

As always, feel free to revert all or any of my edits.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

@Novem Linguae: Where did you get this from, AFC reviewing is different from NPP reviewing in a couple ways. All sources contributing to passing notability must be located in the draft (there is no WP:BEFORE for declining drafts)? Admittedly it's been a while since I regularly did AfC reviews, but this seems to flatly contradict WP:AFCPURPOSE and the reviewing instructions, not to mention WP:N... – Joe (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can double check it at WT:AFC if you want, but I believe that is the procedure there. AFC reviewers are not required to look outside the draft for sources. NPPs, on the other hand, do have to check outside the page for sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the procedure, it should be written down somewhere, surely? Did you check the link to the reviewing instructions above? It explicitly reminds AfC reviewers that notability is a property of the topic, not the article. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Google searches when reviewing? for clarification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog graph

Zippy, there is usually a backlog graph added to the newsletter. Since the graph extension isn't working right now, you can get a graph from here. You zoom in/out to get the time period that you are looking for. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done @MPGuy2824 @Novem Linguae, it's ready to be sent, let me know once you have checked it and I'll send it. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... - I've spent so long checking it myself to send that I will "just send it". Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, checked a few pages and it looks like it has sent alright. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Signed

Hi, the newsletter is not signed unlike other MediaWiki message delivery posts so wont be auto archived. Should not all posts be signed? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic, I simply sent it as MB did In January, which worked fine for auto-archiving as far as I know. I don’t think it matters that much as there is still a time stamp for the edit adding the section but I’m happy to AWB time stamps on affected pages. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zippybonzo, actually they have not worked with some archive bots (e.g. Lowercase sigmabot III) I just kept forgetting to mention. If you go back to this you can see the October 2022 newsletter still not archived in Jan 2023 on a 20 day archive. If you search for the August 2022 one this you see lots listed on archive pages, do the same for October 2022 this there are a lot less but some have been by ClueBot III. I havn't done an exhaustive search but I think it was broken from October 2022 for Lowercase sigmabot III users. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, when I next send an MMS I will send it with a signature. I didn’t think it needed it, but clearly it does. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved messages

Moved from Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Draft

note for Zippybonzo: Be sure to sign newsletter when sending in the form of,'Sent by Zippybonzo using Mediawiki message delivery. Timestamp
Question: Should we add something that Dr. Vulpes and Illusion Flame are new coordinators?

Possibly, I don't think it's needed though. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 15:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you’re probably right. I was just looking for something else to add to the newsletter. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Write it and I'll check it, FYI I have to take the final review as I'm the one sending it and take full responsibility for the actual message when it sends. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should we add something that Dr. Vulpes and Illusion Flame are new coordinators? - Doesn't seem particularly relevant. Also, are we actually seeking more coordinators? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a coordinator becoming an admin is relevant to NPP reviewers who receive this newsletter. Also, we're still waiting to hear back from Evad37 before making deprecation official. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some rewriting Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I'm not a coordinator, so it's not up to me. But that's just a bit of my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, it does seem a little un-needed Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]