m →Article Incubator Barnstar: request can be made at WP:GL/I |
Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
:We've used a different approach for [[WP:IND/UBLP]]. We used the category intersect tool since WP Banners are not always added to the project. The methodology is explained on the page itself. –[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
:We've used a different approach for [[WP:IND/UBLP]]. We used the category intersect tool since WP Banners are not always added to the project. The methodology is explained on the page itself. –[[User:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman</font>]]'''[[User_talk:SpacemanSpiff|<font color="#2B18BA">Spiff</font>]]''' 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
::nice job. :) [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
::nice job. :) [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
May I ask how preemptively creating tons of improper cross-space redirects actually helps? Wouldn't it be more productive to see if articles *are* deleted and then get an admin to restore those and move them? Hell, if someone wants, I'll volunteer to go through any admin's deletion log and restore articles that aren't blatant attack pages for the incubator but preemptively doing it just means that tons more articles are being incubated with a much smaller part of the community able to see them (plus the possibility of someone else re-creating them, the later need for history merges, etc.) If people want it project based, I have no problem going through article talk page to see what they were tagged with and then organizing. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===First steps to peacefully solving the BLP controversy=== |
===First steps to peacefully solving the BLP controversy=== |
Revision as of 06:07, 25 January 2010
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Contacting wikiprojects
The Incubator project can potentially cover all 3 million wikipedia articles. The problem I have often found with articles tagged for rescue at WP:Article Rescue Squadron is that the editors may not be interested in the article subject, so no effort is made to improve the article.
The same problem probably exists here. Black Falcon just now generously allowed me to incubate Wikipedia:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present), but I have absolutly zero interest in the subject.
Has there ever been any effort in contacting other wikiproject members for help with incubated articles? Ikip (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just posted a message on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/German cinema task force and the German wikiproject. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am currently working on a manually generated table which will include the general subject of each article in incubation. The next step will be to automate the table generation. I see no reason why the bot couldn't offer a custom list for various WikiProjects (much the same way some get custom lists on deletion discussion), as long as the projects want it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there, I think that automating the notification of project (especially when the articles are already tagged by projects) is the key to making this work. I just found that the article for one of the top 10 highest profile current AFL adminstrators, Brian Cook, had been moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Brian Cook (football administrator). I only found this as I randomly decided to check my edit count and it listed my top edited pages by section, and this page showed up in the otherwise little used Wikipedia Talk namespace. I'd suggest talking to the Wikipedia:Article alerts people or finding some other automated method of category intersection of the project pages with the incubator pages. In this Cook case, I'll probably tidy/ref it up in the coming days, but unless you only use it for AFD/PROD outcomes (which are already covered by the Alerts pages), you can't just rely on hoping someone has it in their watchlist and notices the move. The-Pope (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Membership list, invitation and welcome template
Are we going to have a membership list? If so we need an invitation and welcome template.
I am worried that my concerns about this project are coming true: without a pressing reason to save these articles, these articles will remain here in perpetuity and interest in this project will wain. I have some suggestions, but will wait for other editors ideas. Ikip 07:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some kind of competition for articles rescued? A variation of Wikipedia:WikiProject community rehabilitation/Idea/RandomTaskCompetition for Incubator members/articles? Rd232 talk 08:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would it help to start deleting ones that have been here the longest? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to make three small suggestions if I can. The first is that the list is probably in need of trimming - it took me an hour last week to track down the three or four articles I thought I could do something with, and my worry that if the list is too long editors will be put off trying to help. (If it is too short, of course, they'll also have nothing to do - balance is tricky). :) The second is that I'd suggest that part of the advantage to ARS is that you're working to a time limit - you have a week, more or less, to find what you need or see the article deleted, so there's a drive to work quickly and get something done. Here, however, the time limits are far more arbitrary. I have no idea how to add time limits to the process beyond what is already there, but perhaps we could start by categorising submissions based on when they were added, so we could see what has been here the longest and try and clean that up, with a limit as to how long they can remain unedited? The third is much simpler - I love collaboration, so an Incubator Article of the Week would probably make me happy. :) Perhaps no one else, and selecting something viable might be tricky, but perhaps something along those lines could work. - Bilby (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, both of you, and Ikip for bringing this up. I think we talked about some more concrete criteria and timelines for deletion earlier, but I don't think anything is in effect. I suggest that we define specific stages of incubation, and set up clear ways to move from one stage to another.
It could be a simple as (I) Brand new. (II) Project notified. (III) Significant improvement, end in sight. (IV) Ready to leave incubation, next editor agreeing may re-mainspace-ify. This could be controlled by a switch in the incubation template?
With a system like this, someone could go through the incubator and notify projects, thus advancing articles from (I) to (II); this is a nice step because you can do it without any special knowledge or research. Articles in stages (II) and (III) would be equipped with a countdown timer, running out in some suitable period of time (1 month each?). After either of those timers runs out, projects could be re-notified of last chance to save, and then push the button after 5 more days.
Something like this? Opinions? We can't continue to not delete anything, or we're just a weird zombie hospital, where everyone's on life-support, indefinitely. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Before you start worrying about how long pages should last in this zone, work out how they get here first. The article which I found here, Brian Cook (football administrator) was moved here because it was a BLP with no references. The refs were very easily found, the BLP article had no negative issues with it (possibly overly positive if anything, but he is highly regarded), but it was moved here with no notification to the WP:Australia nor the WP:AFL projects. If this is how you are going to operate, expect a lot of negativity towards you. Also expect very little cooperation from the majority of WP users who don't know that this system even exists. Take this idea to the projects or signpost or some other high profile area FIRST, before you start removing pages from the main namespace, unless it starts being ONLY a "save" mechanism after a PROD/AFD. My main project invovlement is with the AFL project - we have over 5000 articles with 3600 stubs, with a heap of unreferenced BLPs, so we can't solve the unreferenced BLP problem straight away (vandalism fighting takes a lot of time). Whilst I agree entirely with the policy of requiring BLPs to be referenced, the stick approach (move/wait/delete) that this seems to be taking isn't the way to get it done.The-Pope (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- "If this is how you are going to operate, expect a lot of negativity towards you." Actually, how we're going to operate is by taking input like yours into consideration. I thank you for your remarks, and you may be assured that we're not going to go off half-cocked with anything. Nobody is removing articles from the mainspace for this project; if someone is, please tell me so I can stop them now. That is the opposite of the point of the incubator. This is for articles that were already deleted or slated for deletion, writen off as dead, or userfied without a chance of being noticed.
Does that make a difference to you, that this is not a type of deletion, but is only applied to the already-dead? Is someone representing this project as being different from that? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, what you call the "move/wait/delete" approach is not what anybody in this project has ever suggested. When I suggest a wait/delete process, I'm only thinking of applying it to articles that were already deleted. The idea is to give them a chance to become a real article without a 7-day threat of deletion hanging over them. This was set up as a response to would-be article-savers complaining that they had no time to work on improving articles for deletion because they were too busy arguing in AfD. When I suggested that they ignore the arguments and just improve the articles, their heads exploded and they called me names, so we started brainstorming an "ouside-the-box" solution.
I'm not sure why the Brian Cook article was moved into the incubator. My idea is, as you say, to use this as a "save" mechanism after AfD, PROD, Speedy, Userfy, or what-have-you. Perhaps we're not expressing this clearly enough, or perhaps there is some disagreement about what the incubator is for. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- "If this is how you are going to operate, expect a lot of negativity towards you." Actually, how we're going to operate is by taking input like yours into consideration. I thank you for your remarks, and you may be assured that we're not going to go off half-cocked with anything. Nobody is removing articles from the mainspace for this project; if someone is, please tell me so I can stop them now. That is the opposite of the point of the incubator. This is for articles that were already deleted or slated for deletion, writen off as dead, or userfied without a chance of being noticed.
- Before you start worrying about how long pages should last in this zone, work out how they get here first. The article which I found here, Brian Cook (football administrator) was moved here because it was a BLP with no references. The refs were very easily found, the BLP article had no negative issues with it (possibly overly positive if anything, but he is highly regarded), but it was moved here with no notification to the WP:Australia nor the WP:AFL projects. If this is how you are going to operate, expect a lot of negativity towards you. Also expect very little cooperation from the majority of WP users who don't know that this system even exists. Take this idea to the projects or signpost or some other high profile area FIRST, before you start removing pages from the main namespace, unless it starts being ONLY a "save" mechanism after a PROD/AFD. My main project invovlement is with the AFL project - we have over 5000 articles with 3600 stubs, with a heap of unreferenced BLPs, so we can't solve the unreferenced BLP problem straight away (vandalism fighting takes a lot of time). Whilst I agree entirely with the policy of requiring BLPs to be referenced, the stick approach (move/wait/delete) that this seems to be taking isn't the way to get it done.The-Pope (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, both of you, and Ikip for bringing this up. I think we talked about some more concrete criteria and timelines for deletion earlier, but I don't think anything is in effect. I suggest that we define specific stages of incubation, and set up clear ways to move from one stage to another.
Perceptions
It seems that many editors find it easy to assume that this project is a sneaky way to delete articles. Since that is precisely the opposite of our point, I think it would be useful to clarify what we're about. The lead paragraph on the page now says that this is for "likely deletion candidates". I wonder if we'd be better off only seeking articles that have already been deleted or userfied. Then nobody will think that we're trying to get articles out of the mainspace, and deleting failed incubations. (We have to delete failed incubations after some set time, and deletionists will certainly remind us of that part of the deal, should we forget).
What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's possible to move an article from the articlespace directly into the incubator without a deletion process, but only if there's some urgent and obvious issues with it. That said, I'd not oppose if this was judged to be an unacceptable use of the incubator. Fences&Windows 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to look at an example, but even without our taking anything directly from article-space, people are accusing us of doing just that, and trying to be stealth deletionists or some nonsense. I feel that we're walking a tightrope with this project. On the one hand, if we take articles out of mainspace and then possibly delete them, we're deleting without due process. On the other hand, if we take deleted or almost-deleted articles and let them languish here, then we're trying to circumvent the deletion process.
Fences, what do you think of the Four Phases suggestion I made above in this section, just above The-Pope's reply? I'm concerned that we're currently letting articles stagnate. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about coming across negative, but I think alligning the perceptions, intent and actually is the key. I've explained above how I discovered this section, and as long as that is not going to be the normal MO, then I fully support a "centralised userfication" save approach. Just make sure you get all the other projects informed and try to get it included on the article alert system.The-Pope (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad to know there is an article alert system. I'll look into that, and see if we might come up with a way to dovetail with such a project. I would be open to a more flexible incubation status, that distinguishes articles that have previously been deleted or usefied from article-space, versus articles that were perhaps moved here pre-emptively. Articles in the latter category would not be subject to the same deletion standards as those in the former, not yet having had their "day in court". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the phases, we already have tags to show when articles have begun being worked on, "new", "start" and "eval" iirc. I think this project should make use of article alerts to flag up the presence of articles in the incubator to WikiProjects: this is not supposed to be a sneaky way to keep or delete an article; it's a space to allow time to knock dodgy articles into shape. Fences&Windows 15:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looking now through the first dozen or so incubated articles in the list... it's interesting. It's neat to look at their histories side-by-side (yay, tabbed browsing) and see the various ways they got here. One was born already incubating; I might try that as well.
I'm going to start going through and notifying projects, where it seems to be appropriate and hasn't yet been done. How shall I indicate back at the article that I've done so? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Now for some "late to the party" input:) I think the above conservation is both thoughtful and useful. We are indeed walking a fine line between "sneaky keep" and "sneaky delete" perceptions and need to be careful how we proceed. I've been gone from Wikipedia for a while, but once I get more caught up overall I'll see what I can do about making the above suggestions more "concrete." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looking now through the first dozen or so incubated articles in the list... it's interesting. It's neat to look at their histories side-by-side (yay, tabbed browsing) and see the various ways they got here. One was born already incubating; I might try that as well.
- I agree with the phases, we already have tags to show when articles have begun being worked on, "new", "start" and "eval" iirc. I think this project should make use of article alerts to flag up the presence of articles in the incubator to WikiProjects: this is not supposed to be a sneaky way to keep or delete an article; it's a space to allow time to knock dodgy articles into shape. Fences&Windows 15:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad to know there is an article alert system. I'll look into that, and see if we might come up with a way to dovetail with such a project. I would be open to a more flexible incubation status, that distinguishes articles that have previously been deleted or usefied from article-space, versus articles that were perhaps moved here pre-emptively. Articles in the latter category would not be subject to the same deletion standards as those in the former, not yet having had their "day in court". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about coming across negative, but I think alligning the perceptions, intent and actually is the key. I've explained above how I discovered this section, and as long as that is not going to be the normal MO, then I fully support a "centralised userfication" save approach. Just make sure you get all the other projects informed and try to get it included on the article alert system.The-Pope (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to look at an example, but even without our taking anything directly from article-space, people are accusing us of doing just that, and trying to be stealth deletionists or some nonsense. I feel that we're walking a tightrope with this project. On the one hand, if we take articles out of mainspace and then possibly delete them, we're deleting without due process. On the other hand, if we take deleted or almost-deleted articles and let them languish here, then we're trying to circumvent the deletion process.
Article alerts
I have made a request that incubation be added to the notifications at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#Wikipedia:Article incubator. Thanks, The-Pope for pointing this out. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Best name after moving from userspace?
I moved WP:Article Incubator/User:DFSBrent to the incubator ... I didn't want to get involved in picking an appropriate article name, and also wanted to pick a name to clue you guys that this content came from a userpage that was tagged for deletion (as {{db-spam}}). In this case, I thought the author made an argument that his company was part of a useful cultural trend, and he dug up a lot of references, so I didn't want to just delete it, but it's not ready for articlespace, either. Question: should I change the name from User:X to some possibly appropriate article name when I move from userspace to the incubator? - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that would be appropriate, yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keeping track of project notifications
Hi. I just left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Article wanting attention in incubator. Have we got a way to log that, preferably so it's visible in the list on our main incubator page? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Article ready for mainspace
Hi, I'm not sure how frequently the articles that are ready to be reviewed for re-entry into mainspace are monitored but IMO Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Canasta (band) is ready, can someone please review it. Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Voilà: Canasta (band). Thank you. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion Policy
I was happy to see that you all have formulated a deletion policy for the incubator of deleting articles inactive more than a month, with discretion to extend. This allays many of my concerns about the incubator becoming a dumping ground to bypass deletion processes and is a good step toward making the incubator a success. It does raise a new issue though... we generally give editors at least 6 months of inactivity for drafts in userspace before deleting them at MfD. And even then, that's only enforced when someone notices and cares enough to nominate. This is not a documented standard, but it is our de facto standard. Under what circumstances will an article be incubated against the original editor's will (or without consulting the original editor)? Gigs (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may arise situations that we haven't yet thought about, but here's the way I'm seeing it: Articles moving into the incubator will mostly be new ones, that would have been deleted or userfied a very short time after being created. In these cases, the author should know what's happening, because we'll notify them.
Articles that have already been userfied for some time can also move into the incubator, and in these cases, we can also notify the author, but they might not be around to see the notification. I think it's reasonable to allow more time in cases where the author might not know what's happening.
It might also be worth mentioning that we haven't actually implemented any deletion policy in the incubator yet. We've talked about it, but things are moving slowly. Just in the last couple of days I've been tending the incubator by hand, and notifying WikiProjects about articles here. That's another thing that we'll be doing before deleting anything: Notifying projects and giving them at least a month to help salvage articles before deletion.
I thank you for your question. Is there anything you'd suggest beyond what I've described here? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- What prompted this was a !vote recommendation at MfD to incubate an active article draft. If this is going to change the window from 6 months of inactivity allowed to 1 month, then people should be aware of that before !voting incubate... that it's actually more of a delete vote than a keep vote. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it would be better if the incubator also holds articles for 6 months. In principle, articles should receive more and faster attention in the Incubator than in an individual's user space. We're not in a hurry to delete them; we just need to know there's not going to stack up indefinitely. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The previous conservation on the "maximum time allowed" issue seemed to be tending toward a 6 month limit, although no actual conclusion was reached. Personally, I am fine with leaving it a semi-open ended question for now to let consensus develop "organically." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it would be better if the incubator also holds articles for 6 months. In principle, articles should receive more and faster attention in the Incubator than in an individual's user space. We're not in a hurry to delete them; we just need to know there's not going to stack up indefinitely. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- What prompted this was a !vote recommendation at MfD to incubate an active article draft. If this is going to change the window from 6 months of inactivity allowed to 1 month, then people should be aware of that before !voting incubate... that it's actually more of a delete vote than a keep vote. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal guideline, which I don't think is too out of line with most MfDs is as follows; 6 months inactivity for a draft, unless:
- there is no reasonable chance that they will establish suitability for main space. This is a pretty low bar to meet, even a hint of notability is enough.
- There is no other pressing reason to delete, such as negative BLP concerns, blatant spam, etc.
Now, you probably shouldn't be moving articles that meet my "speedy purge" criteria into the incubator to start with. If they did get into there though, I don't think anyone would fault their early removal. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP discussions
The Incubator was mentioned at a couple of proposals related to WP:Biographies of living persons issues:
- WP:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#BLP incubation
- WT:Proposed deletion#Alternative proposal: Proposed BLP Incubation (closed)
My opinion is that the Incubator does not currently have sufficient infrastructure to support the large number of articles involved. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to agree about bulk incubating. However I think there is one area the incubator would be good on, unsourced BLPs about international subjects. I see lots of articles where sources may be in other languages and will take far longer than the mass prodding is going to allow. So I would specifically request that BLPs with likely foreign language sources be encouraged to go into incubation rather than deletion. Gigs (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT watch the below red links become blue, and follow our example on Category:WikiProject Deletion sorting/BLP/Music, and get on it pronto. RFCs are supposed to stay open 30 days. There are several editors who are dying to delete 50,000 wholesale after that RFC closes.
- Be warned, in my experience with Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations/Bilateral_relations_task_force#Attempt_to_merge_all_of_the_stubby_articles, a slightly similar project in which several editors and I merged several thousand articles to forestall contentious AFDs, there was a lot of attempts to stop what we are doing. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, I was one of them. I still remain unconvinced on inherent notability for bilateral relations. :) But here we have a whole lot more baby and less bathwater. Here are some interesting links from User:Betacommand
*User:Betacommand/Sandbox List of all unsourced BLPs that match \<ref|http|www|\< ref) *User:Betacommand/Sandbox 2 List of all unsourced BLPs that have problem phrases *User:Betacommand/Sandbox 3 List of all unsourced BLPs including all phrases that where triggered.
The first list should be of particular interest since many of those do have sources and are just tagged wrong. Gigs (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the great thing is those bilateral articles are all buried now, faster than anyone could have deleted them. :) I think it was a solution that didn't satisfy anyone completely.
- Interesting list. Let me know if you are interested in helping out. I think some of these wikiprojects will savagely dispose of many of these BLPs, which I am okay with. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggested this on the BLP RFC, what do you all think?
The best way to get the 60,000 page BLP backlog cleared, without wholesale deletions, is to get as many people as possible working towards clearing it. This can be done by tapping into the resources that are wikiprojects.
I suggest creating Category:Wikipedia_Unreferenced_BLP_sorting which mirrors Category:Wikipedia_deletion_sorting with the same categories. Then moving these unsourced BLPs to new project sub pages.
For example, the unsourced BLP article, bob johnson could be moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Unreferenced BLP/Ethnic groups/bob johnson part of Category:Wikipedia_Unreferenced_BLP_sorting/Ethnic groups
I think this can be started immediately, say with one category. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If Category:WikiProject Deletion sorting/BLP/musicians were set up I would work on clearing it. J04n(talk page) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a couple of hours. I need to ask a question on WP:VPT about being able to see two categories simultaneously. Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:American songwriters, for example. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some wonderful editors gave me an answer on categories: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Cross_referencing_two_categories Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 23:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Give me a couple of hours. I need to ask a question on WP:VPT about being able to see two categories simultaneously. Category:Unreferenced BLPs and Category:American songwriters, for example. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The WP:Australia project has commenced doing this already. At the beginning of January, we had over 2000 unreferenced BLPs, it's now down to 1800 and that's only after the last day or two's drama. We are listing it as our Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight and have a working page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Unreferenced BLPs. It's all done manually at the moment - I use WP:AWB which has a list comparer tool to compare all the pages in Category:WikiProject Australia articles (filtered for duplicates and converted from talk pages) to Category:Unreferenced BLPs, using a recursive category scan to get the initial lists. If this is the main problem that Arbcom, Jimbo and other WikiGods want us to focus on, then there is no reason why it can't be automated and projects encouraged/rewarded etc to clean up their lists. The-Pope (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea. Wikipedia is facing a major crisis here. If incubating many thousands of articles is going to be the only way to avoid inappropriate mass deletions so be it, but we'll need some system of sorting and organisation to deal with them here, and we need to recruit more people. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I just created: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs this can be the main page, our headquarters, similar to Category:WikiProject Deletion sorting
I would like The-Pope to help create easy to read instructions on how to automatically move pages from main space to project space. I am asking him right now on his talk page. Ikip 01:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)\
- We've used a different approach for WP:IND/UBLP. We used the category intersect tool since WP Banners are not always added to the project. The methodology is explained on the page itself. –SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- nice job. :) Ikip 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask how preemptively creating tons of improper cross-space redirects actually helps? Wouldn't it be more productive to see if articles *are* deleted and then get an admin to restore those and move them? Hell, if someone wants, I'll volunteer to go through any admin's deletion log and restore articles that aren't blatant attack pages for the incubator but preemptively doing it just means that tons more articles are being incubated with a much smaller part of the community able to see them (plus the possibility of someone else re-creating them, the later need for history merges, etc.) If people want it project based, I have no problem going through article talk page to see what they were tagged with and then organizing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
First steps to peacefully solving the BLP controversy
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia 50 unreferenced BLP articles incubated.
- Short term Goal
- 323 articles incubated to Wikiproject Australia, one more article then was deleted by Rdm2376, Lar, and Scott MacDonald. Showing the community that we can solve the unreferenced BLP problem without "drama" or "disruption".
- Second goal
- 490 articles, 1% of the total unreferenced BLP articles.
- Third goal
- 500 articles, 10% of the total unreferenced BLP articles.
Ikip 07:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm poorly informed as to what exactly is going on, but mass-moving any sort of article out of the main namespace would seem to be the definition of drama. Robert K S (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree for now. At both WP:CRIC and WP:IN we currently have people working on the Unreferenced BLPs and there's nothing yet that we've come across that's incubation worthy, they are either easily sourcable or deletion cases, there might be some that need to be incubated, but they'll need to be addressed individually based on the work group's assessment. –SpacemanSpiff 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
List of all articles deleted by the three editors
- User:Apoc2400/Deletion list For those who want to incubate and work on these articles, includes google cache. Ikip 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject unreferenced BLP sorting/Actors and filmmakers/Diana Millay is more than ready to venture back to mainspace, if anyone wants to review. The move will need an admin as there is a cross-namespace redirect that it will have to go on top of. pablohablo. 11:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Donediff
- nice job pablo ;) I think we need an incubator barnstar and you should be the first recipient. :) Ikip 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Article Incubator Barnstar
Can someone create a barnstar for this project? I am sure there is a page to request one be made. Ikip 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you can request for it at WP:GL/I – Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 02:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)