:Probably best to ask the user who added it ([[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]]) to provide his justification, rather than asking a bunch of other editors. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablomismo| pablo]]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo|hablo]].</sub> 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:Probably best to ask the user who added it ([[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]]) to provide his justification, rather than asking a bunch of other editors. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">[[User:Pablomismo| pablo]]</span><sub style="background-color: #ffc; color: #c30;">[[User talk:Pablomismo|hablo]].</sub> 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:Like any good and useful tool the rescue tag can be misused , but I don’t think that’s the case in this instance. If you read [[WP:BLP1E]] carefully it says that a previously non notable person who becomes famous for one event can still qualify for an article – it depends on the extent of coverage in the media. As you say the article is more than adequately sourced to pass [[WP:N]] , but maybe not when you factor in that the subject seems to qualify for 1E. Hipocrite you may not know but this squad boasts some members with uncanny ability to find sources where others have failed, such as Schimdt and Fences& Windows. Its likely that the Colonel is hoping they or another editor will be able to work their magic and come up with further sources, and so save the article by standard ARS means. When ever someone sees a fine editor like the Colonel acting in a manner that may not seem in the best of faith, it will always be because they haven’t considered policy deeply enough, or considered the valid scope for different interpretations. Hope this explains for you! [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:Like any good and useful tool the rescue tag can be misused , but I don’t think that’s the case in this instance. If you read [[WP:BLP1E]] carefully it says that a previously non notable person who becomes famous for one event can still qualify for an article – it depends on the extent of coverage in the media. As you say the article is more than adequately sourced to pass [[WP:N]] , but maybe not when you factor in that the subject seems to qualify for 1E. Hipocrite you may not know but this squad boasts some members with uncanny ability to find sources where others have failed, such as Schimdt and Fences& Windows. Its likely that the Colonel is hoping they or another editor will be able to work their magic and come up with further sources, and so save the article by standard ARS means. When ever someone sees a fine editor like the Colonel acting in a manner that may not seem in the best of faith, it will always be because they haven’t considered policy deeply enough, or considered the valid scope for different interpretations. Hope this explains for you! [[User:FeydHuxtable|FeydHuxtable]] ([[User talk:FeydHuxtable|talk]]) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
:: There is a core of editors that through their actions in the name of this project, bring this project and wikipedia into disrepute. This was exemplified by the actions of some members of ARS in the recent Telepathy and war AfD. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron articles
Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.
This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron articles
Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.
The Article alerts for this page are no longer delivered, because this project does not employ a banner or category that the bot can use to find relevant articles.
Recognition of efforts
Barnstars project
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.
I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.
RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.
Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because
Its about the articles, not the editors
Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamaltalk 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):
From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2(Talk | email) 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition of embattled users
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages:
==Welcome==
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me.
Need help?
If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit , where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!
If you have any questions at all, please [message me]. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}
The template signs your name for you. It is part of:
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}}
A dust-covered AfD tool that categorized open AfDs by a number of parameters; very useful for "ARS Search and rescue" possibilities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for Speed Deletion
CSD and rescue tag discussion; possible food for thought for "search and rescue" at CSD and Prods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYellerTalktome 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter[1]. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYellerTalktome 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I go to make an alert?
ARS and Prods.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.
Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.
99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYellerTalktome 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablohablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYellerTalktome 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page
This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.
I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: User:Ikip/ref it is really easy to install. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS "How to" potential content
Did you know...
...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template
Once "How to" section is more developed this tool can help direct taggers there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.
I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were just created. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -moritheilTalk 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already wrote User:Ikip/Del which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.
I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a web scrapper which takes all of the articles on WP:AFDT and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can greatly condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space and perceived footprint. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be that horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newby editors survey
Perhaps helpful in pointing which newbie areas need more direction.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia's Usability and Experience Study is a somewhat lengthy but interesting read for those concerning with how friendly and usable Wikipedia can be. The bits about references may help inform writing some of our how to material. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. It seems like many of the problems they address are system wide, which we have no control over. But the "how to" may help in some of these respects. Maybe there are other how-to's which are already available which would be helpful and which can be incorporated? Ikip (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I think for our part we should emphasize the most basic way to ref a sentence and feel free to ask for help. Once we're clear of the current drama I feel i can devote more time to the How to content -- Banjeboi 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS project development
Wikiads
Banner ad for ARS
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter
Newsletter ideas
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:
I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Wikipedia editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;
Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:
“
Don't point a finger, lend a hand
”
It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)
Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.
I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I've been considering to be our motto?
“
Don't count on us.
”
The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“
We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet
”
XfD theory discussions
These may translate into proposals and they may help inform our "how to" guide.
Collapsed for navigation. This is excellent material on policies on preserving content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:
WP:PRESERVEPolicy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
Wikipedia:NotabilityGuideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
Wikipedia:DeletionPolicy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion processWP:INTROTODELETEEssay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletionWP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of interest.
Proposed XfD guideline to use XfD as a last resort. Nuance that closers should merge/redirect if a proper merge target is identified
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“
Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate.
”
Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.
But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?
Collapsing for navigation. There does seem to be overwhelming support for this proposal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:
Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:
The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (this tool already exists, also), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, "don't send me any automatic messages like this again" list, removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.
Support Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. DreamFocus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on WP:VPT if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - couldn't hurt, although an article articles with various tags on it them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy•talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not concern the ARS - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --Kizor 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an offer of resignation after the James Burns orchestra is no more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to the function or goal of ARS But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, query I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? pablohablo. 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not?" support Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
Strong support as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. DreamFocus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at perennial proposals as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It states the answer right there: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. This is somewhat addressed by my comment - This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.
Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):
I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.Ikip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support, I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task"[4] So no one has the coding for this bot.
Past comments on this same idea, other bots
Bot requests page:
AfD Notification bot "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated"
Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.
interesting suggestion. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to the AfD related bot idea - perhaps the userfy option can be spelled out as part of that effort. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag
Proposal accepted, assuming the project isn't deleted this can be worked on once MfD ends. -- Banjeboi 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In an effort toward constructive solutions, appropriate for any Wikiproject, I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.
Support. This should provide a useful pointer of what is actually happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" for want of a better term across all Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) pablohablo. 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think we are only looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported here, but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, I called WP:DUCK on the nominator days earlier [5] for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mibbit... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it should highlight all empty !votes. pablohablo. 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose to oppose The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Ikip (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say that the AFD template itself doesn't attract weak "votes"? We have, after all, had "arguments to avoid" to style votes long before the ARS and certainly in AfDs in which the ARS is not involved. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. pablohablo. 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no other wikiproject has to go through such scrutinty. We should include WP:VG, for example in this study, and maybe one other, say warhammer. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Permission is not required for this. Per WP:BOLD, if you think this is a good idea then go for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to not be disenfranchised. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Modifications In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong focus Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. Taemyr (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. Randomran (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as its best members. If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Wikipedia's? Randomran (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Wikipedia. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. OlYellerTalktome 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor WP:BEFORE starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, or following the instructions at WP:DEL. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contest 2?
Contest concept approved for when there is energy to produce it. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? Randomran (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film) (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? Randomran (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Wikipedia's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Wikipedia and its overall spirit of collaboration. Randomran (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! Ikip (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two 6-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the anniversary date myself. Was the last contest for 6 long months? That seems to long, maybe two weeks, one month max. Otherwise people will start losing interest. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the work needs to be in porportion to the benefits. I think six months is a good time period and if we want to start a new semi-annual one we simply copy paste. The goals, IMHO, is to not simply look to rescue but to instill quality work, if our top contestant rescues and takes five articles from AfD to GA that rather speaks for itself. Also a broader time frame lends itself to wider promotion in appropriate venues. As part of that promotion we should explain what ARS is in a brief boilerplate which can include our anniversary. Theoreticly, article rescuing has always occurred so it's not so much about ARS but the concept and getting better articles and editing. We are but one part of the solution and should be realistic in that many people rescue without our involvement at all. -- Banjeboi 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an RfC underway that proposes to amend CSD to allow for greater use of administrative judgment. There was a (long) discussion at the CSD talk page that led to the RfC. M 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden category on previously tagged pages?
The number of articles tagged is quite large - I'm guessing 1500-2000 at least. Obviously many statistics will be meaningless as anyone can tag any article so we don't control the quality of items coming to us. However I think it is helpful to note how many tagged articles are at each class of article including a growing number at GA. In addition I think it's helpful to note how many do a DYK blurb thus were featured on the main page. I'd like to find a way to add a category to the talkpage or article page so we can keep track of former articles. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea - something like the way that pages formerly listed at AfD have a tag on the talkpage with links to previous discussions, you mean? I think those are added manually (usually by the closing admin}), maybe this would also have to be a manual addition. It would certainly be interesting to keep track of what happens to these articles post-AfD. pablohablo. 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were very unobtrusive, something that also incorporated adding the category, yes. If I get real inspired I'll try to do a manual count by month for those months we have a record of. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stats
Collapsing, this is obviously helpful information.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, we have several counts:
There is the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame which lists just some of the more notable ones that we've bothered to list. We have yet to decide how best to deal with this so this is very much a work in process. Feeding twoards that was an effort to at least record which articles were worked on, I have simply tried to keep the records intact.
2008
Note: Starting in August a more concerted effort was made to archive items that were merged, redirects and deletes or not clear rescues to be more formally acknowledged; these numbers reflect a likely rescue:
August = 25
September = 50
October = 42
November = 31
December = 26+25 (from two lists) = 51
2009
Note: For 2009 we only have raw total articles tagged:
January =130
February =59 (we lost a bunch due to miscommunications and bot issues)
March =120 + 11 + ? (some processed and archived already) = 131+
April =167
May =187 + 49(currently tagged) = 236 so far
Based on these numbers I loosely project ARS has worked on;
2007 (project started in mid-2007)= 750 "rescuing" 300-400
2008 (averaged for twelve months) = 1434 "rescuing" 478
2009 (for the first five months) = 823 "rescuing" 250-300
These are very generalized and we may never know the actual figures as teh current processes to use the rescue tag to flag items triggers a bot which creates a listing. Articles never tagged but still rescued are therefore generally not counted anywhere. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tweakability to rescue template's find sources parameter
Here I've asked for help modifying our {{rescue}} template so we can tweak the "find sources" parameter to a specific string. I know this was talked about somewhere but as things have quieted a bit this seemed a easy thing to persue. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently tagged articles into chronological order
Hey all, I'm working toward a system whereby our items are listed in the currently tagged list by date sent to XfD rather than date tagged for rescue. In theory those listed sooner need more attention as their time at XfD is likely running out. If I can get the bot to do this will look toward that solution. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion prior to new templates creation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
{{Afdrescued}} is an inline template just created that I believe has quite similar issues as the two above. I have removed it from the project page until we have consensus to add it on a project level. To me this is a good example of why all three are unneeded. The whole point is to note someimprovements have been made - Comment. This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. does that and no template is needed. By inviting editors on our project page to use this implies ARS endorses this use so as a group we should clarify if we do or do not. Being named "AFD Rescue" also implies our endorsement as does our iconic life preserver image. For those wishing to endorse using this I encourage you to consider the following:
The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies.
AfD is a discussion so I wouldn't support going down this road. If we do think it's a good idea then I think we also need to get consensus from WP:AFD that this would be acceptable. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All contributions to an article at AfD need to be considered on their own merits. All these templates seem to imply that the efforts of ARS members have more authority and more legitimacy than those of other editors. pablohablo. 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A one-line indication that significant improvements have been made seems quite helpful and an icon is a good eye-catching way of summarising this point. The lifebuoy icon seems quite satisfactory for this purpose and I shall try using it myself, following the good example of other editors. It seems a better way of making the point than WP:HEY, which has always seemed a quite baffling usage, contrary to WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - a one line indication that improvements have been made is helpful, and such have often been added to AfDs. Introducing icons gives too much weight to such a comment, and paves the way for discussions such as this:
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies. Captain Source
Delete with prejudice. Complete cruft. Mr. Standardz
Keep - not doing any harm, plenty of space on the servers. catfan101010
– it is just a visual distraction, adding nothing to the discussion but screen clutter. pablohablo. 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minus the images, we already get WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments and yes, I have seen "nuke from space, lol" or "kill with FIRE!!" as "rationales" as well. :( I find AfDs about the most embarassing aspect of Wikipedia, much more so than poorly written articles, because of the lack of seriousness and immaturity by participants in many AfDs added to the lack of knowledge concerning the subjects under discussion. Heck, I have even seen accounts outright admit they do not know anything about the topic under discussion! You know, actually, I have seen checkmarks and Xs in some AfDs in the past. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping illustrate where this will very likely lead. These kind of comments have long occurred on AfD and look a lot like:
Comment. Article has been rewritten. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note this is presented NPOV and all regular AfD editors will have little confusion what this means. What this means to the overall discussion is a timestamped benchmark for prior-to and post-change discussion to be veiwed by all and especially the closer. Those who amend their !votes may change them or state "the improvements made do not sway my opinion", etc. If after such a comment all the !votes are keep, or at least not delete that also has a bearing on the overall impact the discussion has had. Regardless we have to avoid implying that ARS is the authority on this and that discussion is in any moot because the issues have been resolved. Indeed if I see notes like that what need is there for me to !vote, improve or even look at the article? We want to aid the discussion not impede anyone's involvement, especially newer users unfamiliar with AfD. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the goal is to get users to take a second look. This could be users who previously commented, or new users (new to the AfD) who might feel peer pressure to just agree with the current way the !vote is going. This template removes the peer pressure by saying that you aren't necessarily disagreeing with these people you respect, since they might have looked at an entirely different article. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I commonly place a bullet at the start of my comments to punctuate them. Numerous editors have gratuitous graphics in their sigs. As long as graphics are not bulky, like the giant trout one occasionally sees, then they are fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reasons for not using an image in a signature include:
they are potentially distracting from the actual message
images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution
Icons in AfD discussions would do the same. pablohablo. 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a thin red line at the start of your signature. This graphic and the other bulky formatting markups in your signature have less utility than the suggested graphics above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signatures are one thing, this is a different issue. ARS does not copyright the life-preserver but at AFD it's arguably emblematic of our project which does not take any official position to declare an article is now considered rescued. I think that is problematic for many reasons as previously outlined. This would also seem to be the start of a slippery slope as Pablomismo has shown above where comments are decorated. {{trout}} is one of the few, possibly only, exceptions and generally is employed only in egregious cases unlikely to change anything. I've certainly used it myself. Even if we endorse the use here I still think we need to get approval at WP:AFD which seems unlikely IMHO. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an official-looking declaration of a debatable evaluative claim. By violating the usual AFD norm of not adding images to comments, it appears to be more than just a comment. Is it a good idea to be making official-looking templates for typical AFD comments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just created this template as a useful way to let editors know that the article has changed in a big way, and that some of the earlier concerns may have been addressed. I kept it very low key so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion. If anything, this comment may cause an article to be more likely to be deleted, if the discussion still leans toward delete even after the template. I think we could make it even more neutral by changing it to "significantly changed". I'm going to go do that now. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to just replace it with a comment to that effect? I don't see the need for the big obtrusive box, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What big intrusive box? This template is very unobtrusive:
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
If an article has been improved then I would recommend contacting those who have already commented at the AfD and invite them to reconsider their vote. I tend to keep track of ones I've voted on for a bit of time but not always to the end of the debate. I can't see what use a banner would be, as it is already pretty much always stated in the debate if an article has been improved. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it isn't a banner, it's a single line of text with a tiny icon. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's not a banner, quite right. I wasn't really complaining about the size though. I just don't see the point in it, as people normally say if it has been improved, and a personal touch is always better. Quantpole (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to compalin about the big mbox style template I've seen at a couple articles, but it looks like that's being addressed at WP:TFD. I do like the idea of making a note in the AFD discussion when an article is picked up by WP:ARS. I'd favor a deletion sorting-esque small text notice, no icons or anything like that, added to the discussion at the same time the article is templated for rescue. It serves the purpose of giving closing admins and discussion participants alike a heads-up of possible article improvement, without being overly flashy. I'm not so sure that any "article has been improved" template is needed; that sort of message can be better delivered with a comment in the AFD detailing what sorts of changes have been made. HiDrNick! 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they all should go and, if needed, two messages could be employed - both formatted similar to ____ Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion which is widely used and accepted. (i) That the article has been tagged for rescue, only to note when that occurs - I'm not convinced this will do any good but if done similar to other non-intrusive notifications doesn't seem to hurt. And (ii) a note when articles has been expanded, rewritten, overhauled, etc.; this is only to serve as a benchmark / timestamp of sorts but cannot but worded to present that something has been fixed or that all concerns have been met. The first of these concerns ARS and could be an official template but without icons or other decorative bits. The second has been done for at least two years that I'm aware of and certainly will continue and needs no template or ARS involvement. IMHO, all the rest should be discontinued and removed as likely to cause more problems whether intended or not. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That mostly sound reasonable to me as well. I do disagree with one thing: Both messages should be a template and not a regular comment. People should be able to quickly recognize a standard notation that the article has been nominated for rescue, and that it has changed in a significant way. No, we don't "need" to make either a template, but if you use that argument, we never need to make anything a template. All informational templates ever are is a consistent way to communicate a common thing, that people can quickly recognize. I don't mind dropping the image and making it small to follow convention, however. Gigs (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To wit:
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (link optional if that's controversial)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its nomination for deletion. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fine by me, the link is fine. The first should be a part of the ARS project and named similar to the others out there possible reworked to fit in with Template:Delsort. The second needs to have a neutral name but in theory seems fine as well. Thank you for drafting these. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banjeboi and Gigs - brilliant solution. Informative, succinct, and not intrusive. Thank you. Fences and windows (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The new templates are done: {{Afdrescue}} for the nomination and {{Afdchanged}} for the change notice. Subst below:
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For about five years now, I've been using the simple and straightforward convention of a horizontal rule (----) to denote the point in the discussion chronology where the rewrite happened, with an ordinary bulleted, signed, contribution noting the rewrite beneath it. Of late, I've taken to omitting the note, using just the horizontal rule (example), in part because "Uncle G'ed" was becoming a verb. (Mind you, I've coined similar words myself, such as "Capitalistroadsterization".) Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got consensus to add these to the ARS guidelines? I support doing that. Fences and windows (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, probably won't use them myself, but the icon-free neutral templates are fine. pablohablo. 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked them both so they should be subst and automatically add signatures. The Afdrescued one needs to be renamed to disassociate from ARS and also to stay NPOV. {{Afdimproved}}? -- Banjeboi 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been moved to Template:Afdchanged, and I see no need to delete the redirect. If you want to, you can. Gigs (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. This seems resolved then? -- Banjeboi 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should require that people listen to WP:BEFORE before listing articles for deletion. I find any attempt to start an AFD without adequate discussion on the article talk page to be an uncivil end-run about working towards consensus. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this makes sense, there are problems with it as a “demand”. Editors sometimes propose articles for deletion in good faith, having either missed or misunderstood the criteria for deletion. I have seen inept Google searches both by proposers and defenders of articles, yet we must assume that these are good-faith mistakes or oversights. Also - if it is a “demand”, presumably there is some kind of censure/punishment for non-compliance? What did you have in mind? pablohablo. 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are intending to propose something along this line, you need to do it in a more visible place, probably the Village Pump. J.delanoygabsadds 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, Biaswarrior is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. J.delanoygabsadds 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did think it odd (but not impossible) that he was here, asking this, on his 37th edit! However I suppose we can still see if anyone wants to discuss it. pablohablo. 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is digressing somewhat, but I'd be willing to join a voluntary group that required it's members to comply with a code of good practice, such as complying with WP:BEFORE, not removing a prod without first rescuing the article, and not merging articles without first holding a discussion, and so on. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we also require that nobody can deprod an article without improving it, nobody can list a DRV without first exhausting all discussion with the deleting admin, and canvassing to keep articles at AFD is properly sanctioned? Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special Thanks
Special Thanks to: Benjiboi, Andy Dingley, Theaura, SmackBot, Richard Arthur Norton, Vejvančický, and Gigs for your work on "Physics of Impossible" when it needed resuscitation.Ti-30X (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Improvement is the opposite of deletion"
I've removed this sentence from the main page, it doesn't really make sense. Improvement is not the opposite of deletion, neither are the two mutually exclusive. I could write a bad article about my next-door neighbour and then improve it over the course of many years, but it still won't be on an encyclopaedic topic, and it would not deserve to be in Wikipedia. pablohablo. 09:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The project is often improved by deletions. Good removal. Verbalchat 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Aren't we all - how zen! -- Banjeboi 10:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logically you're totally correct Pablo and Verbal. However successful project statements pretty much never limit themselves to the cold sterility of legalistic writing. Rhetorical flourishes are useful in communicating the essential character of our noble undertaking. Rest assured any project members who come to belief that even attack pages and clear cases of spam ought not be deleted will soon be put right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not merely a "rhetorical flourish". It is a misleading statement which could lead users to believe that any improvement to an article is proof against deletion. "Legality" has nothing to do with it. pablohablo. 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the line in context.
“
but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No!Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion.
”
The section I've bolded is without doubt rhetorical, setting the tone for the rest of the passage. The words I've put in italics already removes the likely of readers being misleaded. Taken as a whole the good writing that seems to me to capture our philosophy very well, so i object to your deleting the line. One of the characteristics of legal writing is that is avoids the possibility of misleading amibiguity by always striving to be perfectly logically correct - but at a cost. That said you have a point, if others agree I wont further object to the deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in "legal writing", but thanks for mentioning it again. I do have an interest in visitors to this page gaining a clear understanding of the deletion process and how to improve improvable articles. The sentence in question adds nothing of value. pablohablo. 12:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. The reasons the section uses emotive language like "Should its life be taken?" is to generate enthusiasm for our noble mission of saving articles and preventing new editors from feeling rejected. As discussed at the MfD for this project, its takes several orders of magnitude more effort to save a poorly written yet notable article compared to whats needed to vote delete. This is why there's value in emphasising the rhetorical effect of the whole passage with the sentence in question. Its a matter of opinion , and Id agree the sentence would have no value in certain types of technical writing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with enthusiasm. Misguided, misinformed enthusiasm can be deleterious to the project, or indeed any "cause", no matter how "noble" its participants perceive it to be. pablohablo. 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a "so you added the {{rescue}} tag" template. Any thoughts or feedback. -- Banjeboi 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, will encourage users to participate in the AfD process beyond mere tagging. Maybe we could add a sentence encouraging them to also edit the article to address the issues raised at the AfD? pablohablo. 10:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite intrusive. Can it be smaller and less garish? Fences&Windows 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intrusive and garish are my specialties ... but I'll se what I can do, mainly a formatting issue to move the drop-down tab. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inapropriate use of rescue tag
Could someone justify putting the rescue tag on Ben Nyaumbe, an article which is more than adequately sourced, but just plain in violation of BLP1E, that needs to be redirected to another article? Is the rescue tag being used to canvass for keep votes? Can someone justify the continued existance of this tag, if it is being used for such canvassing? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to ask the user who added it (Colonel Warden) to provide his justification, rather than asking a bunch of other editors. pablohablo. 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like any good and useful tool the rescue tag can be misused , but I don’t think that’s the case in this instance. If you read WP:BLP1E carefully it says that a previously non notable person who becomes famous for one event can still qualify for an article – it depends on the extent of coverage in the media. As you say the article is more than adequately sourced to pass WP:N , but maybe not when you factor in that the subject seems to qualify for 1E. Hipocrite you may not know but this squad boasts some members with uncanny ability to find sources where others have failed, such as Schimdt and Fences& Windows. Its likely that the Colonel is hoping they or another editor will be able to work their magic and come up with further sources, and so save the article by standard ARS means. When ever someone sees a fine editor like the Colonel acting in a manner that may not seem in the best of faith, it will always be because they haven’t considered policy deeply enough, or considered the valid scope for different interpretations. Hope this explains for you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a core of editors that through their actions in the name of this project, bring this project and wikipedia into disrepute. This was exemplified by the actions of some members of ARS in the recent Telepathy and war AfD. Verbalchat 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Article alerts for this page are no longer delivered, because this project does not employ a banner or category that the bot can use to find relevant articles.
Recognition of efforts
Barnstars project
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.
I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.
RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.
Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because
Its about the articles, not the editors
Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamaltalk 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):
From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2(Talk | email) 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition of embattled users
Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages:
==Welcome==
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me.
Need help?
If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit , where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!
If you have any questions at all, please [message me]. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}
The template signs your name for you. It is part of:
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}}
A dust-covered AfD tool that categorized open AfDs by a number of parameters; very useful for "ARS Search and rescue" possibilities
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for Speed Deletion
CSD and rescue tag discussion; possible food for thought for "search and rescue" at CSD and Prods
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYellerTalktome 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter[6]. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYellerTalktome 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I go to make an alert?
ARS and Prods.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.
Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.
99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYellerTalktome 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablohablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYellerTalktome 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page
This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.
I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: User:Ikip/ref it is really easy to install. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS "How to" potential content
Did you know...
...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template
Once "How to" section is more developed this tool can help direct taggers there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.
I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were just created. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -moritheilTalk 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already wrote User:Ikip/Del which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.
I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a web scrapper which takes all of the articles on WP:AFDT and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can greatly condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space and perceived footprint. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be that horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newby editors survey
Perhaps helpful in pointing which newbie areas need more direction.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia's Usability and Experience Study is a somewhat lengthy but interesting read for those concerning with how friendly and usable Wikipedia can be. The bits about references may help inform writing some of our how to material. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. It seems like many of the problems they address are system wide, which we have no control over. But the "how to" may help in some of these respects. Maybe there are other how-to's which are already available which would be helpful and which can be incorporated? Ikip (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I think for our part we should emphasize the most basic way to ref a sentence and feel free to ask for help. Once we're clear of the current drama I feel i can devote more time to the How to content -- Banjeboi 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS project development
Wikiads
Banner ad for ARS
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter
Newsletter ideas
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:
I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Wikipedia editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;
Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:
“
Don't point a finger, lend a hand
”
It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)
Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.
I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I've been considering to be our motto?
“
Don't count on us.
”
The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“
We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet
”
XfD theory discussions
These may translate into proposals and they may help inform our "how to" guide.
Collapsed for navigation. This is excellent material on policies on preserving content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:
WP:PRESERVEPolicy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
Wikipedia:NotabilityGuideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
Wikipedia:DeletionPolicy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion processWP:INTROTODELETEEssay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletionWP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of interest.
Proposed XfD guideline to use XfD as a last resort. Nuance that closers should merge/redirect if a proper merge target is identified
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“
Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate.
”
Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.
But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?
Collapsing for navigation. There does seem to be overwhelming support for this proposal.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:
Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:
The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (this tool already exists, also), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, "don't send me any automatic messages like this again" list, removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.
Support Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. DreamFocus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on WP:VPT if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - couldn't hurt, although an article articles with various tags on it them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy•talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not concern the ARS - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --Kizor 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an offer of resignation after the James Burns orchestra is no more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to the function or goal of ARS But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, query I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? pablohablo. 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Why not?" support Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
Strong support as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. DreamFocus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at perennial proposals as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It states the answer right there: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. This is somewhat addressed by my comment - This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.
Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):
I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.Ikip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support, I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task"[9] So no one has the coding for this bot.
Past comments on this same idea, other bots
Bot requests page:
AfD Notification bot "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated"
Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.
interesting suggestion. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to the AfD related bot idea - perhaps the userfy option can be spelled out as part of that effort. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag
Proposal accepted, assuming the project isn't deleted this can be worked on once MfD ends. -- Banjeboi 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In an effort toward constructive solutions, appropriate for any Wikiproject, I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.
Support. This should provide a useful pointer of what is actually happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" for want of a better term across all Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) pablohablo. 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think we are only looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported here, but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, I called WP:DUCK on the nominator days earlier [10] for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mibbit... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it should highlight all empty !votes. pablohablo. 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose to oppose The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Ikip (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say that the AFD template itself doesn't attract weak "votes"? We have, after all, had "arguments to avoid" to style votes long before the ARS and certainly in AfDs in which the ARS is not involved. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. pablohablo. 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no other wikiproject has to go through such scrutinty. We should include WP:VG, for example in this study, and maybe one other, say warhammer. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Permission is not required for this. Per WP:BOLD, if you think this is a good idea then go for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to not be disenfranchised. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with Modifications In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong focus Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. Taemyr (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. Randomran (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as its best members. If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Wikipedia's? Randomran (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Wikipedia. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. OlYellerTalktome 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor WP:BEFORE starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, or following the instructions at WP:DEL. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contest 2?
Contest concept approved for when there is energy to produce it. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? Randomran (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film) (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? Randomran (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Wikipedia's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Wikipedia and its overall spirit of collaboration. Randomran (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! Ikip (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two 6-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the anniversary date myself. Was the last contest for 6 long months? That seems to long, maybe two weeks, one month max. Otherwise people will start losing interest. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me the work needs to be in porportion to the benefits. I think six months is a good time period and if we want to start a new semi-annual one we simply copy paste. The goals, IMHO, is to not simply look to rescue but to instill quality work, if our top contestant rescues and takes five articles from AfD to GA that rather speaks for itself. Also a broader time frame lends itself to wider promotion in appropriate venues. As part of that promotion we should explain what ARS is in a brief boilerplate which can include our anniversary. Theoreticly, article rescuing has always occurred so it's not so much about ARS but the concept and getting better articles and editing. We are but one part of the solution and should be realistic in that many people rescue without our involvement at all. -- Banjeboi 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an RfC underway that proposes to amend CSD to allow for greater use of administrative judgment. There was a (long) discussion at the CSD talk page that led to the RfC. M 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden category on previously tagged pages?
The number of articles tagged is quite large - I'm guessing 1500-2000 at least. Obviously many statistics will be meaningless as anyone can tag any article so we don't control the quality of items coming to us. However I think it is helpful to note how many tagged articles are at each class of article including a growing number at GA. In addition I think it's helpful to note how many do a DYK blurb thus were featured on the main page. I'd like to find a way to add a category to the talkpage or article page so we can keep track of former articles. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea - something like the way that pages formerly listed at AfD have a tag on the talkpage with links to previous discussions, you mean? I think those are added manually (usually by the closing admin}), maybe this would also have to be a manual addition. It would certainly be interesting to keep track of what happens to these articles post-AfD. pablohablo. 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were very unobtrusive, something that also incorporated adding the category, yes. If I get real inspired I'll try to do a manual count by month for those months we have a record of. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stats
Collapsing, this is obviously helpful information.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, we have several counts:
There is the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame which lists just some of the more notable ones that we've bothered to list. We have yet to decide how best to deal with this so this is very much a work in process. Feeding twoards that was an effort to at least record which articles were worked on, I have simply tried to keep the records intact.
2008
Note: Starting in August a more concerted effort was made to archive items that were merged, redirects and deletes or not clear rescues to be more formally acknowledged; these numbers reflect a likely rescue:
August = 25
September = 50
October = 42
November = 31
December = 26+25 (from two lists) = 51
2009
Note: For 2009 we only have raw total articles tagged:
January =130
February =59 (we lost a bunch due to miscommunications and bot issues)
March =120 + 11 + ? (some processed and archived already) = 131+
April =167
May =187 + 49(currently tagged) = 236 so far
Based on these numbers I loosely project ARS has worked on;
2007 (project started in mid-2007)= 750 "rescuing" 300-400
2008 (averaged for twelve months) = 1434 "rescuing" 478
2009 (for the first five months) = 823 "rescuing" 250-300
These are very generalized and we may never know the actual figures as teh current processes to use the rescue tag to flag items triggers a bot which creates a listing. Articles never tagged but still rescued are therefore generally not counted anywhere. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tweakability to rescue template's find sources parameter
Here I've asked for help modifying our {{rescue}} template so we can tweak the "find sources" parameter to a specific string. I know this was talked about somewhere but as things have quieted a bit this seemed a easy thing to persue. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently tagged articles into chronological order
Hey all, I'm working toward a system whereby our items are listed in the currently tagged list by date sent to XfD rather than date tagged for rescue. In theory those listed sooner need more attention as their time at XfD is likely running out. If I can get the bot to do this will look toward that solution. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion prior to new templates creation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
{{Afdrescued}} is an inline template just created that I believe has quite similar issues as the two above. I have removed it from the project page until we have consensus to add it on a project level. To me this is a good example of why all three are unneeded. The whole point is to note someimprovements have been made - Comment. This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. does that and no template is needed. By inviting editors on our project page to use this implies ARS endorses this use so as a group we should clarify if we do or do not. Being named "AFD Rescue" also implies our endorsement as does our iconic life preserver image. For those wishing to endorse using this I encourage you to consider the following:
The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies.
AfD is a discussion so I wouldn't support going down this road. If we do think it's a good idea then I think we also need to get consensus from WP:AFD that this would be acceptable. -- Banjeboi 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All contributions to an article at AfD need to be considered on their own merits. All these templates seem to imply that the efforts of ARS members have more authority and more legitimacy than those of other editors. pablohablo. 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A one-line indication that significant improvements have been made seems quite helpful and an icon is a good eye-catching way of summarising this point. The lifebuoy icon seems quite satisfactory for this purpose and I shall try using it myself, following the good example of other editors. It seems a better way of making the point than WP:HEY, which has always seemed a quite baffling usage, contrary to WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - a one line indication that improvements have been made is helpful, and such have often been added to AfDs. Introducing icons gives too much weight to such a comment, and paves the way for discussions such as this:
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
The significant improvements do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and sources policies. Captain Source
Delete with prejudice. Complete cruft. Mr. Standardz
Keep - not doing any harm, plenty of space on the servers. catfan101010
– it is just a visual distraction, adding nothing to the discussion but screen clutter. pablohablo. 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minus the images, we already get WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:PERNOM style of non-arguments and yes, I have seen "nuke from space, lol" or "kill with FIRE!!" as "rationales" as well. :( I find AfDs about the most embarassing aspect of Wikipedia, much more so than poorly written articles, because of the lack of seriousness and immaturity by participants in many AfDs added to the lack of knowledge concerning the subjects under discussion. Heck, I have even seen accounts outright admit they do not know anything about the topic under discussion! You know, actually, I have seen checkmarks and Xs in some AfDs in the past. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping illustrate where this will very likely lead. These kind of comments have long occurred on AfD and look a lot like:
Comment. Article has been rewritten. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note this is presented NPOV and all regular AfD editors will have little confusion what this means. What this means to the overall discussion is a timestamped benchmark for prior-to and post-change discussion to be veiwed by all and especially the closer. Those who amend their !votes may change them or state "the improvements made do not sway my opinion", etc. If after such a comment all the !votes are keep, or at least not delete that also has a bearing on the overall impact the discussion has had. Regardless we have to avoid implying that ARS is the authority on this and that discussion is in any moot because the issues have been resolved. Indeed if I see notes like that what need is there for me to !vote, improve or even look at the article? We want to aid the discussion not impede anyone's involvement, especially newer users unfamiliar with AfD. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the goal is to get users to take a second look. This could be users who previously commented, or new users (new to the AfD) who might feel peer pressure to just agree with the current way the !vote is going. This template removes the peer pressure by saying that you aren't necessarily disagreeing with these people you respect, since they might have looked at an entirely different article. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I commonly place a bullet at the start of my comments to punctuate them. Numerous editors have gratuitous graphics in their sigs. As long as graphics are not bulky, like the giant trout one occasionally sees, then they are fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reasons for not using an image in a signature include:
they are potentially distracting from the actual message
images in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution
Icons in AfD discussions would do the same. pablohablo. 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a thin red line at the start of your signature. This graphic and the other bulky formatting markups in your signature have less utility than the suggested graphics above. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signatures are one thing, this is a different issue. ARS does not copyright the life-preserver but at AFD it's arguably emblematic of our project which does not take any official position to declare an article is now considered rescued. I think that is problematic for many reasons as previously outlined. This would also seem to be the start of a slippery slope as Pablomismo has shown above where comments are decorated. {{trout}} is one of the few, possibly only, exceptions and generally is employed only in egregious cases unlikely to change anything. I've certainly used it myself. Even if we endorse the use here I still think we need to get approval at WP:AFD which seems unlikely IMHO. -- Banjeboi 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an official-looking declaration of a debatable evaluative claim. By violating the usual AFD norm of not adding images to comments, it appears to be more than just a comment. Is it a good idea to be making official-looking templates for typical AFD comments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just created this template as a useful way to let editors know that the article has changed in a big way, and that some of the earlier concerns may have been addressed. I kept it very low key so that it wouldn't disrupt the discussion. If anything, this comment may cause an article to be more likely to be deleted, if the discussion still leans toward delete even after the template. I think we could make it even more neutral by changing it to "significantly changed". I'm going to go do that now. Gigs (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to just replace it with a comment to that effect? I don't see the need for the big obtrusive box, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What big intrusive box? This template is very unobtrusive:
This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion.Arsman
If an article has been improved then I would recommend contacting those who have already commented at the AfD and invite them to reconsider their vote. I tend to keep track of ones I've voted on for a bit of time but not always to the end of the debate. I can't see what use a banner would be, as it is already pretty much always stated in the debate if an article has been improved. Quantpole (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, it isn't a banner, it's a single line of text with a tiny icon. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's not a banner, quite right. I wasn't really complaining about the size though. I just don't see the point in it, as people normally say if it has been improved, and a personal touch is always better. Quantpole (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came to compalin about the big mbox style template I've seen at a couple articles, but it looks like that's being addressed at WP:TFD. I do like the idea of making a note in the AFD discussion when an article is picked up by WP:ARS. I'd favor a deletion sorting-esque small text notice, no icons or anything like that, added to the discussion at the same time the article is templated for rescue. It serves the purpose of giving closing admins and discussion participants alike a heads-up of possible article improvement, without being overly flashy. I'm not so sure that any "article has been improved" template is needed; that sort of message can be better delivered with a comment in the AFD detailing what sorts of changes have been made. HiDrNick! 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they all should go and, if needed, two messages could be employed - both formatted similar to ____ Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion which is widely used and accepted. (i) That the article has been tagged for rescue, only to note when that occurs - I'm not convinced this will do any good but if done similar to other non-intrusive notifications doesn't seem to hurt. And (ii) a note when articles has been expanded, rewritten, overhauled, etc.; this is only to serve as a benchmark / timestamp of sorts but cannot but worded to present that something has been fixed or that all concerns have been met. The first of these concerns ARS and could be an official template but without icons or other decorative bits. The second has been done for at least two years that I'm aware of and certainly will continue and needs no template or ARS involvement. IMHO, all the rest should be discontinued and removed as likely to cause more problems whether intended or not. -- Banjeboi 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That mostly sound reasonable to me as well. I do disagree with one thing: Both messages should be a template and not a regular comment. People should be able to quickly recognize a standard notation that the article has been nominated for rescue, and that it has changed in a significant way. No, we don't "need" to make either a template, but if you use that argument, we never need to make anything a template. All informational templates ever are is a consistent way to communicate a common thing, that people can quickly recognize. I don't mind dropping the image and making it small to follow convention, however. Gigs (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To wit:
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (link optional if that's controversial)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its nomination for deletion. Gigs (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fine by me, the link is fine. The first should be a part of the ARS project and named similar to the others out there possible reworked to fit in with Template:Delsort. The second needs to have a neutral name but in theory seems fine as well. Thank you for drafting these. -- Banjeboi 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banjeboi and Gigs - brilliant solution. Informative, succinct, and not intrusive. Thank you. Fences and windows (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The new templates are done: {{Afdrescue}} for the nomination and {{Afdchanged}} for the change notice. Subst below:
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Gigs (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For about five years now, I've been using the simple and straightforward convention of a horizontal rule (----) to denote the point in the discussion chronology where the rewrite happened, with an ordinary bulleted, signed, contribution noting the rewrite beneath it. Of late, I've taken to omitting the note, using just the horizontal rule (example), in part because "Uncle G'ed" was becoming a verb. (Mind you, I've coined similar words myself, such as "Capitalistroadsterization".) Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have we got consensus to add these to the ARS guidelines? I support doing that. Fences and windows (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, probably won't use them myself, but the icon-free neutral templates are fine. pablohablo. 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked them both so they should be subst and automatically add signatures. The Afdrescued one needs to be renamed to disassociate from ARS and also to stay NPOV. {{Afdimproved}}? -- Banjeboi 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been moved to Template:Afdchanged, and I see no need to delete the redirect. If you want to, you can. Gigs (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. This seems resolved then? -- Banjeboi 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should require that people listen to WP:BEFORE before listing articles for deletion. I find any attempt to start an AFD without adequate discussion on the article talk page to be an uncivil end-run about working towards consensus. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this makes sense, there are problems with it as a “demand”. Editors sometimes propose articles for deletion in good faith, having either missed or misunderstood the criteria for deletion. I have seen inept Google searches both by proposers and defenders of articles, yet we must assume that these are good-faith mistakes or oversights. Also - if it is a “demand”, presumably there is some kind of censure/punishment for non-compliance? What did you have in mind? pablohablo. 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you are intending to propose something along this line, you need to do it in a more visible place, probably the Village Pump. J.delanoygabsadds 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, Biaswarrior is a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. J.delanoygabsadds 19:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did think it odd (but not impossible) that he was here, asking this, on his 37th edit! However I suppose we can still see if anyone wants to discuss it. pablohablo. 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is digressing somewhat, but I'd be willing to join a voluntary group that required it's members to comply with a code of good practice, such as complying with WP:BEFORE, not removing a prod without first rescuing the article, and not merging articles without first holding a discussion, and so on. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about we also require that nobody can deprod an article without improving it, nobody can list a DRV without first exhausting all discussion with the deleting admin, and canvassing to keep articles at AFD is properly sanctioned? Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special Thanks
Special Thanks to: Benjiboi, Andy Dingley, Theaura, SmackBot, Richard Arthur Norton, Vejvančický, and Gigs for your work on "Physics of Impossible" when it needed resuscitation.Ti-30X (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Improvement is the opposite of deletion"
I've removed this sentence from the main page, it doesn't really make sense. Improvement is not the opposite of deletion, neither are the two mutually exclusive. I could write a bad article about my next-door neighbour and then improve it over the course of many years, but it still won't be on an encyclopaedic topic, and it would not deserve to be in Wikipedia. pablohablo. 09:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The project is often improved by deletions. Good removal. Verbalchat 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Aren't we all - how zen! -- Banjeboi 10:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logically you're totally correct Pablo and Verbal. However successful project statements pretty much never limit themselves to the cold sterility of legalistic writing. Rhetorical flourishes are useful in communicating the essential character of our noble undertaking. Rest assured any project members who come to belief that even attack pages and clear cases of spam ought not be deleted will soon be put right. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not merely a "rhetorical flourish". It is a misleading statement which could lead users to believe that any improvement to an article is proof against deletion. "Legality" has nothing to do with it. pablohablo. 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the line in context.
“
but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No!Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion.
”
The section I've bolded is without doubt rhetorical, setting the tone for the rest of the passage. The words I've put in italics already removes the likely of readers being misleaded. Taken as a whole the good writing that seems to me to capture our philosophy very well, so i object to your deleting the line. One of the characteristics of legal writing is that is avoids the possibility of misleading amibiguity by always striving to be perfectly logically correct - but at a cost. That said you have a point, if others agree I wont further object to the deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in "legal writing", but thanks for mentioning it again. I do have an interest in visitors to this page gaining a clear understanding of the deletion process and how to improve improvable articles. The sentence in question adds nothing of value. pablohablo. 12:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. The reasons the section uses emotive language like "Should its life be taken?" is to generate enthusiasm for our noble mission of saving articles and preventing new editors from feeling rejected. As discussed at the MfD for this project, its takes several orders of magnitude more effort to save a poorly written yet notable article compared to whats needed to vote delete. This is why there's value in emphasising the rhetorical effect of the whole passage with the sentence in question. Its a matter of opinion , and Id agree the sentence would have no value in certain types of technical writing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with enthusiasm. Misguided, misinformed enthusiasm can be deleterious to the project, or indeed any "cause", no matter how "noble" its participants perceive it to be. pablohablo. 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a "so you added the {{rescue}} tag" template. Any thoughts or feedback. -- Banjeboi 10:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, will encourage users to participate in the AfD process beyond mere tagging. Maybe we could add a sentence encouraging them to also edit the article to address the issues raised at the AfD? pablohablo. 10:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite intrusive. Can it be smaller and less garish? Fences&Windows 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intrusive and garish are my specialties ... but I'll se what I can do, mainly a formatting issue to move the drop-down tab. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inapropriate use of rescue tag
Could someone justify putting the rescue tag on Ben Nyaumbe, an article which is more than adequately sourced, but just plain in violation of BLP1E, that needs to be redirected to another article? Is the rescue tag being used to canvass for keep votes? Can someone justify the continued existance of this tag, if it is being used for such canvassing? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to ask the user who added it (Colonel Warden) to provide his justification, rather than asking a bunch of other editors. pablohablo. 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like any good and useful tool the rescue tag can be misused , but I don’t think that’s the case in this instance. If you read WP:BLP1E carefully it says that a previously non notable person who becomes famous for one event can still qualify for an article – it depends on the extent of coverage in the media. As you say the article is more than adequately sourced to pass WP:N , but maybe not when you factor in that the subject seems to qualify for 1E. Hipocrite you may not know but this squad boasts some members with uncanny ability to find sources where others have failed, such as Schimdt and Fences& Windows. Its likely that the Colonel is hoping they or another editor will be able to work their magic and come up with further sources, and so save the article by standard ARS means. When ever someone sees a fine editor like the Colonel acting in a manner that may not seem in the best of faith, it will always be because they haven’t considered policy deeply enough, or considered the valid scope for different interpretations. Hope this explains for you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a core of editors that through their actions in the name of this project, bring this project and wikipedia into disrepute. This was exemplified by the actions of some members of ARS in the recent Telepathy and war AfD. Verbalchat 14:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]