Maybe it would be healthier to have something that focuses on building more reviewers that are active on an ongoing basis. For example, longer term (over 1 year) there are only 7 reviewers that average at least 2 articles per day and only 19 that average at least one per day. Maybe add an database listing (and eventually awards) of who has gone the most months with reviewing at least 20 articles in each month. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me. We can do this in addition to a backlog drive. Recognition coordinator @Dr vulpes, would you be interested in exploring this idea further (i.e. setting up a page somewhere, a quarry query) and then executing it (by announcing it and giving out barnstars)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to emphasize I think that a visible updated listing is an important part of it. And maybe the 20 should be thirty, and maybe "30 day" periods would be easier to program than months. But I think that looking at ~1 month (or 2 or 3 month) periods is the right time frame. Nothing shorter than a month because even active folks might want to take a 2 or 3 week break or at least know that they can do that.North8000 (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think recognizing those who've done consistent reviewing over a period of time is a fantastic idea. I hope it's one that can be made to happen (realizing it's easy for me to say when I'm not doing the work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To solidify an idea/proposal it would be to: Add a database listing of those who have who has gone the most 30 day periods with reviewing at least 30 articles in each 30 day period. And later on add awards based on that. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is easier to do this on a monthly basis (instead of 30-day periods). Also, I've only counted for this year, and only upto November. Minor changes are needed to add the data for December (when the month is over). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Cool. I picked 30 days because I thought it was easier. But is that figure for number of months in the streak? if so, that first one says 53 years. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to you by mistake (I meant to reply to Josh's message). The query that I linked to does not count the number of consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews. It instead shows (for the period Jan 2023 - Nov 2023) the lowest monthly reviews for that reviewer. As you can see only 6 reviewers (ignoring the bot) reached 30 or more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: IMO getting the number of regular reviewers up would be be a big plus for keeping NPP on firm ground. This would mean folks who are watching and active and likely would "dial up" as needed when the backlog grows. What do you think about trying the "consecutive months that a particular reviewer has hit 30 reviews"? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The processing that you are asking for isn't easy to get via SQL (at least I don't know of an easy way to do it). It might be possible to do this via a spreadsheet program. You do need the raw data for that for which you can use the results of this query which gives you the reviews done by a reviewer in every month that they did a minimum of 30 reviews. Hope it helps. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. There is a blue "Download data" button, just above the results. There are many formats available to download, including CSV and Excel XLSX. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824:I did it in a semi-automated way. The longest still-going streak is JTtheOG at 101 months and the second longest is a bunch of people at 4 months. Will take some noodling on what to suggest that is doable. North8000 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I was under the mistaken impression that just clicking on your link caused the query to run but now it appears that I was wrong. Is there a way to make it run/update? Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I encourage you to register on Quarry. Once you do so, you'll find there's a button that says "Fork". When you press that you'll get that query in your own personal work space and you'll be able to run the query whenever you want. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-run the querry, so you can get the updated results from there. But, I'd suggest that you follow Josh's advice and fork the querry so that you can run it at will. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:@MPGuy2824: I think I did that and launched it a couple times. Both times it said "This query is currently executing" and then I gave up after 2 hours. Do you think I just need to wait longer or is it more likely that I'm doing something wrong? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North, I've had trouble lately with queries that take a lot of time. Since you are only looking at results from 2024, I've tweaked the quarry. The results are now available, but please re-fork the quarry and re-run the results just to see if all is fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I did that and tried to run I'd say 5 times and waited to about two hours each time where it just stayed qued or running with no completion. So I've just used your data. Do you think I jest need to be more patient (like let it wait/run all night) or is it likely that I'm doing something wrong? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I think that what is confirmed doable is list and award people that do at least 30 edits in every month of the year. And temporarily do the same by quarters starting with Q1 2024. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think recognition is good. Please make sure to coordinate with @Dr vulpes so that we are not double awarding anything. What's the proposal exactly? Barnstars, listing on a page? How often would they be awarded? If someone achieves 30 reviews per month would they end up getting a barnstar every month? (which might be too much, should give some thought to our plan) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Per my post below I was thinking of an award (and being on a permanent list) for doing it every month for a calendar year. And after the first quarter, a listing of who is still in he running for the yearly award. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a yearly award for people who do X reviews per quarter/month. Let me think about how to do the data management (Come March I will forget what I was doing). Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝)01:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily calculate it on a quarterly and yearly basis using the data extracted by @MPGuy2824:'s query discussed above. So after each quarter it would show who is still in the running for the calendar year. Someone other than me (like a coordinator) would issue the award itself. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes:@Novem Linguae: Quarterly criteria (at least 120 per quarter) would also be fine and has the advantage of somebody not getting booted from the running by just taking a 1 month break. If we want to do this we should announce it by early January (if monthly) or sometime in January if quarterly) IMO it would be a good move to have more editing "horsepower" in place which would notice and respond when the backlog climbs. Also would probably get more regular reviewers in place. A big burst of effort with backlog drives is also good. But when you look at the math, a big backlog (which is only about 2 weeks worth of reviews) is more of an indicator of lack of regular reviewers who notice and respond to climbing backlog. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So for those who see this and are interested in being in this, do at least 30 reviews every month. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the results through February. Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
@North8000, I think it would be a good idea to create a separate page to document these recognitions, as they might be overlooked if they're just added here. I'd be glad to set it up either in my userspace or on the NPP project pages. Let me know what you think. BTW, have you considered sending barnstars to these folks? – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: Agree 100%. I think it would be a good NPP project page. I think that barnstars would be a good idea. Maybe at the 6 month point and definitely for the year. Not sure what the protocol would be to do that on behalf of the project. I didn't want to overstep. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also not a coordinator at NPP, but I try to help where I can. I can assist with maintenance, and when it’s time to distribute barnstars, we can reach out to Dr vulpes, a coordinator at NPP who handles awards, to ask for their help with distribution. This way, our coordination team can use some extra hands. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the results through March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
Congrats! Here are the results through April. March Each of these folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
Congrats! Here are the results through May. Each of these 17 folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want to stay in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
Congrats! Here are the results through October. Each of these 12 folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month this year. If you want to stay in on this, be sure to do at least 30 reviews every month.
Congrats! Here are the results for the entire 2024. Each of these 11 folks has done at least 30 reviews for each month of 2024. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be an award for these (at least 30 reviews per month for every month in 2024)? You can leave me out. North8000 (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a setting on the new pages feed or new pages that allows you to see which articles are missing a corresponding talk page? For example, you can filter for articles that "have no categories" or "may be orphaned." Is there a similar filter for articles lacking talk pages? If so, where can I find it? If not, could we add it to the new pages feed filtering capabilities? Thanks! Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies for delay in starting to help with this backlog effort. This month I have had very little free time to do this, but I intend to start soon. Storye book (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey NPP coordinators and NPPers, do you think we should also give {{Lesser scribe}} as a barnstar for the backlog drives? Currently there are awards for 200 and 500 points, we can maybe give this to 350/400 or so points? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do the coordinators and NPPers think about more frequent backlog drives? based on File:NPP unreviewed article statistics.svg, the most reduction in pages is done during those drives, but still the lowest was not less than 8000. More freqent drives, like every two three months, can help us reduce the backlog to near zero levels. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>09:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like every 4 months (3 times a year), what we're currently doing, is probably the maximum. Otherwise they will lose their magic. Previously the 4-month cadence has been working great. You can see it in the graph. I'm not sure what happened with this backlog drive... According to the graph, this one was not as successful with mainspace articles for some reason. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every 2 months wouldn't be effective. I agree every 4 months is reasonable, and every 3 months might be pushing it. I'm not sure if people are still recovering from Christmas/new year this January, or if the overlap with the GAN backlog drive had any impact? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham When I originally proposed January as the GAN backlog drive month, what I had in mind was "American undergraduate students less busy" and primarily "beginning of WikiCup". February would still work for both of those. But I'm not sure if either this drive or the WikiCup are likely to have had much impact. There aren't that many NPRs in the GAN backlog (though, the co-ords are all either NPR or admins), so I think it's more likely that WikiCup is the issue if it's either of these, but I'm skeptical of that one too. I haven't looked at the ranking tables for the NPP drives, but my suspicion is that one or more of the typically highly active reviewers hasn't been as active this time around. NPP and AFC technically have a high bus factor, but are nevertheless really vulnerable to activity swings in the most highly active reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with Novem. A higher frequency would result in NPP ironically becoming a permanent backlog drive. This last drive hasn't been particularly successful, but the reasons are evident and it's not strictly because some of the more prolific reviewers have drifted away - that is an effect rather than the cause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me to. Also, they take an absolute mountain of time and effort to do. I found it really hard going the last time, even to do 500. It not sustainable. The impetus would be lost. It needs to be a special event that you take on for a short period of time. Otherwise I don't think it would get done. scope_creepTalk20:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have the final number soon, but interestingly, it was actually a fairly successful drive in terms of review count @Kudpung, either second or third most all time behind the September, 2024, drive. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I returned to help out (just a bit) this time after an absence from the process for 2 years and from being a coord for several more. Extremely familiar with NPP since 2010, I have noticed how the average article type in the feed has morphed significantly, making them much slower to review and more difficult to assess. This is why a large number of patrollers are just tagging them for attention and leaving it for another patroller to decide what to do.
NPP is arguably the most important single process in the entire Wikipedia, but ihe moral of this situation is that for the vast majority of the 832 patrollers, NPP has become a thankless boring, soul destroying, activity needing anything up to 6 minutes per article if it is to be done as thoroughly as the rest of the community demands by hanging a Damocles Sword over their heads. Many of those who populate the request page at PERM have clearly bitten off more than they can chew as reflected by the requests for advice at WT:NPR , despite the huge efforts of developers and coords over the years to provide excellent instructions at WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps, and that's what I continue to preach to folks in hopes that they'll continue to casually contribute. I like to think I've done a lot in my recruitments efforts, both on wiki and on the community Discord, but there's obviously a ways to go without a singular workhorse to carry the load (@Onel5969, your absence is seriously felt, but we shouldn't have to rely on you to carry so much weight at the end of the day). All we can do is what we can do, and though my efforts I believe have helped, I've felt a bit lost and like I'm vaguely holding onto hopes for things to improve. I'm not really sure where to go from here, but we need improvements/more contributions at NPP. The coord team is always open to suggestions, whether big or small, that could help with getting folks involved or improving the process altogether. At this point... I'm considering proposing that we simply have articles over 180 days old drop out of the queue. Your feedback, and experience involved with such feedback, is always appreciated @Kudpung. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every bit helps, indeed, and throughout my 2-year absence I have held regular discussions off-Wiki with various NPP friends about possible solutions. The causes have been well identified but we have pretty much exhausted all possibilities. One idea which I have proposed many, many times is to severely prune the number of NPPers. This would dispel the : 'Why should I sign up for NPP? It's a thankless task, and anyway, with 832 reviewers their team is big enough already', myth which I have heard so often, while nothing could be further from the truth. We get rid of inactive admins, let's look at the NPP deadwood for starters. The basic cut-off is obvious. If they are really interested they can always apply at PERM again for another probationary stint.
I would strongly advise against proposing that we simply have articles over 180 days old drop out of the queue. There is enough crap and perma-tagged material in the 'pedia already. The biggest challenge however, is of course the back of the queue - the articles that no one wants to run the risk of patrolling without the Sword dropping on their heads.
We've seen how some of the patrollers with the best ideas (including a NPP co lead coord) have permanently left Wikipedia for being criticised for just doing their work; you successfully initiate the greatest improvement in the Curation process, do 2,000 reviews, but get one or two slightly wrong, and the community falls on you like a ton of bricks and in the worst case scenario will even wreck your RfA for it. The community at large refuses to accept that NPP is triage, not AfC or some other field hospital. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've tried everything -- simplifying the flowchart to make gnoming steps optional, increasing recruitment, increasing awards, mass nominating people for autopatrol, etc. -- and so far backlog drives are the only thing that has worked. Oh, and getting lucky with a super reviewer now and then (Onel5969, John B123, etc.), but that is for the most part outside of the NPP coordinator's control and involves a bit of luck.
Backlog drives have actually done fantastic over the last year keeping the backlog stable. If you look at the graph, the unreviewed article count has been holding steady between 8000 (right after a backlog drive) and 16000 (right when we start a backlog drive), averaging out to 12000. The count hasn't really gone up or down, which is great since if it were steadily climbing that would be really bad. Unfortunately, this recent backlog drive is an exception, for unknown reasons, and could be the start of a concerning trend upwards.
At this point... I'm considering proposing that we simply have articles over 180 days old drop out of the queue. I don't think we're there yet, but I think that is the next step if the queue gets completely out of control (maybe >25,000 unreviewed articles). Either that or remove more steps from the flowchart. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have any articles dropping off the qeueue and doesn't matter what size it gets to. They all need to be tracked and checked at some point, even if its not us doing it. We shouldn't be diluting any core processes around article review. The core of Wikipedia is quality. If that quality starts to drop off in new articles, then the reputation of Wikipedia for veracity will be damaged and the whole thing will be finished. At the point it will be a case of upping sticks and just stopping. scope_creepTalk17:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to push back against that assumption, that the reputation of Wikipedia for veracity will be damaged. I truly do not believe that most readers would be able to tell the difference between a wiki that is patrolled by NPR and one that is not, for one thing. And it's not like NPPers are doing full source checks on everything - we don't even do that for GAN, or even for FAC past a certain stage. But most importantly, Wikipedia's reputation for veracity is, well... look at the business with the Heritage Foundation or with Elon Musk ranting about the place. Belief in Wikipedia's accuracy (or lack thereof) is more ideological than anything else. NPP doesn't change that. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly correct in assuming that '...most readers would [not] be able to tell the difference between a wiki that is patrolled by NPR and one that is not', and they probably don't but that is precisely where readers may unconsciously be absorbing misinformation in unaudited content. Nowhere is this more dangerous than in the contentious topics and paid editing. A mainstream encyclopedia with a reputation to maintain has to be as neutral and factual as its sources permit; we can leave the dissemination of fake news to social media, the tabloid press, deliberately biased news reporting and opinion pieces, and other web based political mouthpieces.
This thread is precisely about one of the new challenges facing the patrollers. I haven't done as many patrols during this campaign as lots of other editors have but I was amazed at the number of sources I came across that were dead on arrival. Readers don't always look up the sources and when they see a plethora of in-text citations, they most likely assume the article to be truly notable and authoritative, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove steps from the flowchart. Or more specifically, narrow everything to the one job that only NPP can do and the only one that NPP needs to do. Handle the question: CAN THIS BE A SEPARATE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA? And thus keeping the review-every-new-article-for-this process functioning. Our problems are the obvious result of making the NPP job overly difficult. Everything else (all of the other problem with articles) relates to ALL articles, not particularly to new articles. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the first flowchart The first flowchart (I made it) was very basic and lasted for years; I am partly responsible for the second flowchart because I encouraged it when asked, but I didn't know what we were going to get. An excellent piece of initiative, a useful tool, and must have taken many hours to make, but over the years many newer patrollers have told me the very sight of it almost scared them off wanting to do NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A change that could help reduce the backlog is restricting article creation to EC editors, making non-EC go through AFC; a lot of the time-consuming NPP reviews are those of mass made barely/non-notable articles made by newcomers. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is possible, as the community would never agree to it. Also, sys admins apply additional scrutiny to ensure that Wikipedia's founding principles are upheld. This sometimes means reconsidering configuration changes that could limit the idea of "anyone can edit".
Aaron Swartz once said in a blog post titled "Who Writes Wikipedia?": "An outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site — the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it’s the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content". Although this is an old quote, it still rings true. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the community would never agree to it. We are not stopping people from editing though, no one can see non-reviewed articles or drafts either way, it's just that with AFC, it won't be in draft space. The link says 2006- things have changed. And restricted article creation would not actually stop "outsiders" that much- random blp/corp can wait a few weeks for article to be AFC-reviewed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't agree. After finally convincing the WMF that it was a local issue after they vehemently blocked it (with unacceptable PA to our users and admins) for several years, the WMF agreed to a trial for ACPERM and again the final and 3rd RfC passed again with a resounding consensus on a big turnout. If such a suggestion were to be made, the proposal would need to be very carefully researched, worded, and backed up with concrete data that cannot be denied. Putting in mechanisms for keeping the NPP process within realistically achievable levels and at the same time assuring the quality that the WMF likes to boast about, is not an infringement of the misquoted 'anyone can edit' meme, whose original spirit was meant to infer 'you don't need a degree or be a minimum age to edit Wikipedia' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fly in the ointment (well 3 flies actually) comes from a community of hypersensitive inclusionists who insist 1). that Moving to Draft is the devil in disguise. 2). That every article should be done a BEFORE before tagging it for any of the so called deletion processes, neither of which is governed by policy; and 3). Our own fault at NPP by not standing our ground and insisting that NPP, as North8000 reminds us, is essentially a binary process: good enough for mainspace, or not good enough for mainspace. In the latter case there are no less than seven perfectly acceptable avenues for further treatment which are beyond the official remit of NPP. There are several obvious solutions to all this which I won't tempt providence by detailing here and now, but they need to be taken seriously into consideration, and letting unreviewed rubbish drop over the cliff at 180 days isn't one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few IMO problem article-creation areas but I consider that to be a sidebar. I do a lot of NPP's; IMO the most frequent ones are:
Various articles with "stats-only" sources and resultant "stats-only" content. Mostly under what I view as multi-criteria derived topics. And where the only prose content is turning a stat (or factoid) into a sentence. A few stereotypical ones are "The 2021 season of the XYZ team" and the "2019 election in the XYZ district, or the stats for a particular sports event.
"Completionist" efforts for non-suitable topics. E.G. "I'm going to make an article for each stop on that bus/train line"
"Completionist" articles on sports players and coaches where there is no reference that is even 1/2 GNG.
Articles for commercial benefit of businesses, executives, politicians, professionals, artists, performers. Probably mostly by UPE or fans.
Some data will be coming soon (I hope) from an WP:QUARRY , and I will post that when I have it. What we also need is a breakdown (any ideas how to compile it, organise it?) of a recent 1 month sample, preferably the January drive, of new article type basically per user:North8000:, of today's most common creations, broadly:
BLP
Football (soccer) players
Other sport, athletic people and coaches
Businesses executives
Politicians
Visual & Performing arts: actors, directors/filmmakers, musicians/singers, DJs, composers, albums, band tours,architecture, novelists, etc)
Companies
Completionist E.G. "I'm going to make an article for each stop on that bus/train line"
Indian subcontinent
Bollywood (actors, movies, etc)
Politicians
Companies
Settlements
Noting that today's new articles rarely include the traditional encyclopedic topics such as the sciences etc. Authors of such articles generally create pages compliant with policies.
IMHO there's a big one which I think is not fully represented there which I think of as "stats only" "derived topic". "The 2021 season of the XYZ team" and the "2019 election in the XYZ district, or the stats for a particular sports event/tournament. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. These tend to straight copy/paste articles from some sports stats site, or two. There is so many of them now I wouldn't have believed it 10 years ago. It is quite a vast duplication of effort. On the genuine articles that you'd find a traditional encyclopeadia, I used to count them years ago, when I first started. I was about 1:20 to 1:30. Now I suspect, but dont know for sure - it would be subjective, it could be as low as 1:50-1:60. scope_creepTalk11:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think LLM creations are quite so critical at the moment. We don't want a complete breakdown of every kind of article. What we need are some basic representative stats to reinforce an argument for some action like I did for ACTRIAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That list I made covers by no means all types of articles. It's just the overwhelming majority of genres drawn from my experience of patrolling this last drive. I looked at all the new articles, but I do admit to have been selective of what I actually worked on, going mainly for the low hanging fruit. What matters is getting the stats because that will determine what we do next, and I don;t think we can enlist the help of the WMG Growth Team ths time. The WishList people have already ruled it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very large articles backlog
