Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive

Leaderboard appearance

My name isn't appearing on the leaderboard. First I assumed this was because I only did my first reviews a couple of hours ago, and maybe the board just hasn't updated yet, and I would appear once I had a non-zero score to display. But then I realised that at least half the names on the board are showing zero scores, so that can't be it. Any idea why my name isn't there? Or on a slightly broader point, why are only 74 names appearing on the leaderboard, although 80 participants have signed up? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: it seems to originate from the participants' list itself. If I am reading the regex right, the bot did not count participants which entry starts with {{User}}. Only those with {{User}} are not listed in the latest update, Special:Permalink/1182950091. I have updated the participants list, Special:Diff/1182954917. Can you update the leaderboard again? – robertsky (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I really should've made the regex case-insensitive... Thanks for spotting that. I've fixed the code now, and I'll run the bot again soon. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaderboard update frequency

Good start. Nice to see the leaderboard so early. What is the update frequency, please? More important for new reviewers who enjoy seeing progress made. Well, so do we all, but new reviewers always need encouragement 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Right now the frequency is "whenever I run the script". I'll set up a cronjob later to automatically run it every hour or two. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity That makes a lot of sense. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Would be possible to date and time stamp the published iteration of the leaderboard, please? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent:  Done. Should be visible now. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking good. I like the "Improve as we go" feel! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-reviews

At an earlier drive there was a requirement to do a minimum number (10% of one's reviews, IIRC) of re-reviews. Which was probably a bit of a hassle to administer, but at least it ensured some level of QC. I take it that's not being done now?

Also, in at least one drive (may have been the same one as in the previous point) there was an extra week or so allowed after the drive ended to do the re-reviews. What's the policy this time? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed these out when copying from the 2-week drive. Will have these included. Thanks for bringing this up. – robertsky (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Looking at the July 2021 Backlog Drive, it was worded as:

It is recommended that each participant have had at least 10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is more) re-reviewed.

It is recommended that each participant have conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews.

There's no mention of minimum if it was recommended. If we want to enforce a minimum, a modification to the second line?

> To qualify for the barnstar awarded for the accumulated points achieved, the participant has conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. Otherwise, the participant will be accorded the next lower barnster award, with Browine award being the lowest given. The top 3 rank awards will be given to the top 3 reviewers who have also conducted a number of re-reviews greater than 10% of their number of reviews. – robertsky (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky: oh okay, I remembered wrong, I thought it was a hard requirement. I'm not really fussed either way, let's hear what others have to say? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be worth considering for future drives, or even adding separate barnstars for reviews for this one, but I think given the drive has already started we probably shouldn't be shifting the goalposts for how people get barnstars. Turnagra (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

How about giving 1 pt per re-review for making re-reviews? that's done for July 2021 drive, and not shifting the goalposts, just making it an additional avenue for gaining points? – robertsky (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that - it would also give a way for the backlog drive to continue if we somehow clear the whole backlog, by switching to a QA focus. Turnagra (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra We cleared it down to zero last time. It was a bit of a mixed blessing, because it gave folk immediate and multiple reviews almost too fast for them to consider the contents of the review. Was fun, though.

Quality Assurance is important. This is why we each have a duty to assess other people's reviews. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, can you add a point for each re-review done? If so, I will update the scoring rubrics. – robertsky (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I should be able to do that. It might take a while for me to update the bot's code though, so those point might not be added until later in the drive. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity, I have updated the page with re-reviews being counted as well, given that we have just a couple of hundreds of drafts left for review. If the bot isn't updated by the end of the drive, I will manually tabulated the scores. – robertsky (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I should not get credit for Draft:Simon Rosenthal

I declined for copyvio but the creator pointed out the source is fair use so I reversed my decline. If there is a better place to note this let me know and also fine with someone giving me a re-review fail. S0091 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've marked the review as invalid on your log. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Great start

Wow, that's an impressive start to the drive! At this rate, we'll have the backlog cleared in ten days. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Really? That would be the most impressive thing I've ever witnessed since joining the site! Oltrepier (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be a phenomenal result! It would also mean that we'd be able to deal with the resubmits after the backlog drive to stop the backlog immediately bouncing back up. Turnagra (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We got to zero backlog in the AFC backlog drive I participated in a year or two ago. Completely agree. It is an amazing feeling of teamwork and accomplishment to go from a 4 month, 4000 draft backlog to zero. It's an amazing adrenaline shot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Counting glitch

@Ingenuity I think that a rejected (or other) draft also sent for CSD is not counted correctly if it is deleted before the counting gizmo counts it. Or if not that then another thing affects it.

Evidence: User:Timtrent/AfC log/Archives/2023#November 2023 has substantially more entries than Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive/Participants/Timtrent. Look for J.Stanley Brown number 46 in the list here, 53 in my list.

I'm only playing for fun, so don't mind. Others may be perplexed, though 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I wondered about that. Not because it might affect my bling, you understand, but purely in the interests of fair play. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

We take our fun seriously! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the bot can't see deleted contributions. I can think of a few possible solutions to this, but unfortunately they would all require a significant portion of the bot's code to be rewritten and I don't really have the time to do that at this point. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Learnings for next time, I suspect. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity I think it is something else causing the anomaly, out of 107 AFC actions in User:Timtrent/AfC log/Archives/2023#November 2023 I see only seven appear to have been deleted, That suggests that I should see substantially more than 86 (plus a few recent ones) in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/November 2023 Backlog Drive/Participants/Timtrent

I'm truly not concerned whether you have the chance to solve it for this drive, but I believe it to be important that you have more evidence for when you are able to give it a hard stare. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the manual solution the easiest here? At the end of the drive, everyone looks through their own review log and counts the redlinks (presumably they're all deleted drafts, and presumably all deleted drafts appear as redlinks?). And passes on this number without any rounding up or creative accounting to whoever is doing the final tally. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing empirically, it is not (wholly) to do with deleted reviews 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I have only three redlinks in my log, and yet I must have requested 20+ speedies. I guess we're back to your original point about the "counting gizmo". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is now a rather large gulf between my "drive" review history which shows 114 reviews, and My AFC log, which shows 153. Ingenuity, I wonder if this is just me, or whether there is an underlying issue common to all. Might it be declined drafts being resubmitted for further review, thus not wholly counted? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent: it looks like some of that was because of list formatting being wrong in your log, which restarted the count. I've fixed that now, and it looks like you have 129 reviews on your log - still a significant difference, but not quite as bad. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity I hope I am the only one affected. I'm only logging this stuff to give you a "user's overview" in case it helps you with things you can affect.

Thank you for fixing it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Newsflash

1999 drafts to review. Happened just now.

Keep bringing it down! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And we have emptied the 3 months and above categories. Well done all. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That's extraordinary considering 27 reviewers have yet to review even one draft! I've been slacking today due to entertaining grandchildren. Theroadislong (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Theroadislong can't the grandkids review some drafts lol. :) S0091 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I just hope I can get to 200 points. :) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9 Not far to go. Keep it up. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9 Seems like you made it! Cam you overtake anyone else? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Under 1,500!!! Keep going folks. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We're into "~8 weeks" and yellow label territory! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

900 to go - saw it just now! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's really amazing, we're down to 800 already, and it hasn't even been full six days yet! We'll hit zero so many times before the month is finished, that in itself will be some sort of new record. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I am running out of personal steam! I'd really like to see more new reviewers having a go. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As the backlog is dropping at ~400 per day should hit zero in 2-3 days. Maybe we need to consider how to encourage the new reviewers to keep doing 1-2 a day to keep the backlog clean for good (I know.... I can dream....) KylieTastic (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How about more types of bling?

• Encourage new reviewers to get started, with a badge after their first X reviews (assuming the reviews pass QC).
• Streak badges to promote daily reviewing: get a new badge after 25 days of daily reviews, 50 days, 100 days, etc.
• Theme badges to cover any particular problem areas, say BLPs or drafts with COI tags, or whatever is the busiest category, or particularly difficult drafts.

-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Something similar was discussed back in May, WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 53#RfC: Rewards for AfC participation, but not sure if anything came of it. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's like herding kittens doing such things here. The main sticking point is a bot runner willing to do the work, then if we had one I would suggest starting small with a couple of 'awards' that people could argue less about. Once a basic system was up and running having discussions to add more would be easier. KylieTastic (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't be so critical of the little kittens. :) Actually, I wonder if we should have three drives annually: a recruitment drive to get more reviewers with barnstars given to the recruiters, a new reviewer drive (reviewer for a year or less, barnstars for re-reviews by reviewers over a year) and a drive with all reviewers. Perhaps scheduled regularly, like recruitment drive in January, new reviewer drive in March, then all reviewer drive later in the year (and maybe at some point mostly automated). S0091 (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

All one needs to herd kittens is a helping of cat food 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What makes this even more impressive is the submission rate is also high: The first three days were ~462, 329 & 368 not including al the deleted chuff! KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We have a green flag, ~3 weeks, and <200 drafts remaining. Whoop whoop!! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems now stuck in the 30-50 range. Are we not going to get to (the totally meaningless but symbolic) zero at all, this time? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think last time we a lot more communication on WT:AFC. There was a lot more chat about the drive in general and the progress and I think that helped drive the final push. Frankly last time it felt more collaborative. Not that I can talk... as I've not really been involved this time just helping out on the side. KylieTastic (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I would rather that we get stuck at 30–50 and stay stuck there than hit zero and bounce back to the same backlog a few months later like last time. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Trufax. Still, would be nice to hit zero, even for a fleeting moment... (sigh) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well we could glitch the submission script for a few hours ;) KylieTastic (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

IT systems are very prone to snafus. Someone might trip over a cable, and spill their drink into the server. You never know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki server cage #4 will be left mysteriously unlocked exactly two hours from now... –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Crikey, it has already crept up to 70+, and that's just in the last 24 hrs! Give it a month, and we could be at 1,000+ again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well currently 35 of those are just two submitters... KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't jinx it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Acceptance ratios

There seem to be widely differing ratios. To be certain that every participant is using the same broad criteria the review of reviews is very important.

It's perfectly possible that some reviews have hit a patch of lousy submissions, and declined almost all. It's equally possible that other reviewers are unduly accepting.

I think it is time to remind ourselves that we are tasked with accepting drafts that we believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. That's a tough judgement to make, and I understand why human nature says 'Be in the safe side', and tightens the acceptance criteria. I also understand encountering a paid editor tightens the acceptance criteria. Yes, I am guilty of that (but I choose to hold said editors to a more exacting standard). But please let us make sure each of our does our individual best to accept those with >50% chance of survival. Obviously that is one reviewer's opinion, that >50% part. But the community gets a chance to improve all accepted articles (yes, I know they can play with drafts too), to improve the, to offer them for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think front of queue patrollers (newest drafts) are likely to have a lower accept ratio (10% or 20%), and back of queue patrollers (oldest drafts) are likely to have a higher ratio. I think this is just the nature of the drafts in those parts of the queue. But yes, we should be vigilant that we are not being too strict. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What I found with the oldest submissions is that they were, in the main, the easiest to review and had a far higher acceptability rating. There is nothing to fear from an "old" submission.

I agree with your thoughts on the newest submissions.

With the unreviewed submissions at under 600 and falling rapidly, I think it is time for those of us with a willingness to do it to move into Quality Assurance mode. 6 days into a drive with a four months backlog and we are almost to zero. We have to be sure our quality is high. Too strict is viewed as being as unfortunate as too lenient, and AFC has a reputation that is only as good as the latest review by any reviewer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but there are quite a few drafts I get halfway though accessing and realise that I don't know enough about the subject matter in order to access the article, particularly articles where I've got it wrong before. Each editors have different areas where they feel this way, I suspect. I do agree that we should be trying to raise the standard of our reviews though. Spending the time on reviews like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calinski-Harabasz_index&diff=1183757072&oldid=1183722159 seems worth-while to me because we not only get a better article out of it, but also a more skilled editor. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What to do for the remaining 2.5 weeks

Looks like we'll hit zero backlog in a day or two. First off, make sure to enjoy the moment when it happens. Hitting zero backlog in the 2021 AFC backlog drive I participated in is one of my all time favorite wiki-moments.

Thinking pragmatically, what are we going to do after that with the remaining 2.5 weeks? Pounce on new submissions at the front of the queue? End the drive early at the week 2 mark? Switch to rescuing and accepting unsubmitted drafts? (and awarding points for this) (credit to @Hey man im josh for this idea) Something else? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of continuing the drive until the end of month while explicitly allowing points to be counted from acceptance of un-submitted drafts (when appropriate, obviously). There's some good momentum going and each day ~150-250 articles end up on User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. I think it's a good way to keep the ball rolling while also possibly saving content from being G13 deleted.

Note the existence of Category:Promising draft articles and Category:Draft articles by ORES topic classification, which could help interested participants find unsubmitted drafts to review. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should put some thought into what sort of things could be done to stop the backlog from shooting back up soon after the backlog ends. Reviewing unsubmitted drafts could be a good way of doing that in the short term while we have a lot of momentum, but I'm sure there are other options as well (that I can't think of right now...) Turnagra (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The only way to address future backlogs is to get a larger pool of active contributors so that the backlog does not actually rise, which is much easier said than done. Aside from that, there's not much we can do aside from going through the existing drafts to find ones that are suitable (or close to) for main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I reached out to an editor who has in the past submitted abandoned drafts and I will go through some of FloridaArmy's drafts (there are about 1.400) to submit some of those given they have a restriction on how many they can submit. S0091 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the link to FloridaArmy's drafts? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates see this. Some are more ideas or research in progress than readily formed drafts but likely there are at some that meet WP:NPOL. S0091 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you were to sort by current size you'd like find the ones that are closest to ready for main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Since we're touching on restrictions, I should probably mention I'm TBAN'd from BLPs. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates well then of course you should not touch WP:BLPs even as reviewer or submitter but as far FloridaArmy's drafts, most are unlikely to be BLP. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

most are unlikely to be BLP. Yes, FloridaArmy appears to do a lot of deceased (historical) individuals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

what sort of things could be done to stop the backlog from shooting back up soon after the backlog [drive] ends. Honestly, ending the backlog drive early might be the most effective way to achieve that goal. Since reviewers would be less burned out. I don't have an opinion on it, but just wanted to point that out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe give points for rereviews to incentivize that? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@PerfectSoundWhatever, rereviews are accorded points. I have updated the backlog drive page. Bot counting may be delayed. The tally will be out after some manual checks after the end of the drive. – robertsky (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Neat! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sleep. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 01:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Work on a new backlog drive, where we measure not AfCs reviewed, but AfCers recruited. Every time a new AfCer reviews their first draft, a bot checks to see whether an participating editor has had a conversation with them about AfC on their talk page. If so, the existing AfCer gets credit for every draft reviewed by the newcomer for the next year (and the newbie gets a brownie). Recruit five newbies and get a branstar. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Can y'all please not submit drafts that someone else is actively working on and thus isn't ready to have in mainspace? It's really rude, especially if someone, such as myself, is planning on submitting them to DYK and they aren't in the proper state yet for that. Furthermore, the existence of a draft page doesn't mean someone is planning on using AfC in the first place. If there is no AfC template on the draft page at all, then there's no indication that there's any intent to submit here. Silverseren^C 22:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  This stems from me submitting some drafts FloridaArmy created, see User talk:S0091#Um.... S0091 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-review count

As we shift our focus (well, others do, I'm always a few steps behind...) to re-reviewing, it would help us abide by the "each participant has had at least 10% of their reviews (or 3 reviews, whichever is more) re-reviewed" recommendation if the leaderboard showed how many re-reviews each contributor has received. That way we could see where to focus re-reviews, to help get everyone up to that 10% or 3+ level. Would this be easy enough to add to the table? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this would be really helpful as I've started re-reviewing. Qcne (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree, too! Oltrepier (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-review querry

I said this in the NPP discord, and I think I rather post it here too. I’d love to note that while doing re-reviews for a reviewer, you should check the diff/version as of when the reviewer reviewed the draft and not its current diff/version. Because there might be a significant change after the decline, unless there were no changes at all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

A few notes

Thoughts on this? Leaning towards no but don't really feel like opening 134 refs to evalutate. Also, does anyone here know Taiwanese? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9 WhileGoogleTranslate can help, Google Scholar suggests the topic to be notable. This I will accept it and let the community do its thing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

My review of Draft:In Person Friday Night at the Blackhawk, San Francisco, Volume 1

After discussing this with the creating editor I should not receive credit for this review. I have left a comment on the draft subsequent to the review diff. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-reviews

How are these counted? Are coordinators adding them to the tally manually, or should the bot be picking them up? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If the script for the bot isn't updated before the drive ends, it will be manually counted at the end of the drive. – robertsky (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Zero?!

Blimey, did we finally hit zero, just now?! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems we have for at least a moment, then back to one, then back to zero and so on. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#backlog down to 5... can you make it 0. Or come chat with us on Discord in the #articles-for-creation channel :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day! GG everyone... BuySomeApples (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Re-review count?

How are the re-reviews counted? Now that the leaderboard has been updated, I was expecting to see my re-review tally appear, but it's still showing zero. Is this because I've used ✓ Pass etc. at the start of my re-review, does this throw off the counting script? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing yes. @Enterprisey, one edge case to consider. Reference edit: Special:Diff/1187823073. – robertsky (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh-oh, are we using my code? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Enterprisey (talk!) 04:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh.. pinged the wrong person! apologies! – robertsky (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive rewards

@Robertsky, I noticed the November Drive barnstars have not been awarded yet. Is there anything I can do to help? – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer just completed. thanks for checking in, was working on it on xmas eve. Would have been a bit earlier, if not for a sudden upset stomach (on charcoal/po chai pills now). – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Great job on everything! Please take care of yourself. The new year's waiting for all your incredible plans and adventures! – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the incredible work you did organising the backlog drive (and to Ingenuity for running the bot!) Turnagra (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, was an incredibly successful backlog drive. I love it when backlog drives result in a zero backlog. Zero backlog is always such an amazing moment for the drive participants. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ingenuity,Robertsky, Are there any updates regarding the drive rewards? Thanks.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Robert already gave out rewards on 25 December. Haven't received yours? – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No, i didn't receive any rewards.[1], i think it might have been a technical oversight, thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah.. you have nobots on your talk page, which AWB honours. I did follow up with a couple of other similar user talk pages, and I missed your page. I still have the barnstars on a file. So here's a belated one. Apologies for the delay and thanks for raising this up. – robertsky (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh! I see, thank you so much, I had inserted nobots tag on my userpage long ago and forgotten about it!. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)