Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator

RfC: Should the incubator be reframed as a "soft deletion" mechanism?

The incubator was originally designed and operated for over a year as a temporary home for all sorts of material that was not yet suitable for mainspace. This included new article drafts, candidates for speedy deletion that were not yet deleted, and articles with a delete consensus at AfD where at least one editor recommended incubation in good faith. There has been a recent proposal by User:SilkTork to reframe the incubator as a "soft deletion" process, to be only used on previously deleted material. The proposed changes can be seen here. The previously existing processes can be seen here. I invite wider community input on this proposed change. Gigs (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the motivation. As far as I can tell there's a proposal to make the incubator's purpose more narrow than it is now. It strikes me as policy creep to restrict something that's really just about trying to fix articles up. Care to explain the problem with the way the incubator has been used in the past, and how this fixes or improves it? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork will have to provide that in detail. I've invited him to include a statement directly below mine, refactoring the discussion as necessary. One concern that we share is that the deletion process for stale incubated articles was ill-defined. I think there was weak emerging consensus to just put them all through MfD, which I don't see as ideal, but it's something I could live with. Gigs (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• We should be able to use it on both not-ready content and previously-deleted but close-to-ready material. (I think the changes are not exclusive to previously-deleted articles, though.) Actually, it doesn't really matter what we use it on (provided it's not a copyvio, BLP vio/other attack page, etc.) provided we delete the untouched stuff after a while per WP:FAKEARTICLE. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you notice the new criteria 2 which requires the candidate articles to be previously deleted? Gigs (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it also includes provisions for articles to be incubated rather than deletion via CSD/XfD/etc. Regardless, I agree with you and believe that we should allow both previously deleted and new articles to be incubated. The main point to the incubator is that the articles are not ready for mainspace, but have the potential to be, so we should not be excluding anything that was not previously deleted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't read those criteria as all disjunctive. The way it's written, it appears to me that all but the last two are required, and one of the last two must be satisfied. This seems to have been SilkTork's intent as well, as evidenced by [1] where he plainly states that the "incubator is for deleted content" when someone asks him why he called their draft unsuitable for incubation. Gigs (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need a broader RfC to look at the purpose of the incubator, if it is working, and how we can make it work. We also need to consider if it's purpose is confused, out of policy, and redundant to other working and successful processes, such as WP:AfC and WP:Rescue, and if we should close it down. I have been working to clarify the process, reduce redundancy, and bring it back in line with existing deletion policy. My next intention is to analyse the articles that have been through the process to see what impact the incubation process has had, because I've become aware that some users are disappointed that the expected help has not arrived (and their articles may be about to - or may already have been - deleted without them being notified), and part of the problem may be that once incubated, the articles are ignored as they are not linked from anywhere, and are dependant upon a willing body of editors who are prepared to work on any article that is moved to the incubator. I haven't started this analysis yet, and it may be a while before I complete it. I would prefer to comment more fully at that time. SilkTork *^YES! 18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• AfC is for creating articles, not saving potential articles. Yes, AfC submissions can be declined and re-submitted later, but it's not really a "community collaboration" process like the incubator is supposed to be; AfC was made as a way for IPs to create articles after we started letting only registered users make articles some years ago. The rescue squadron is for "saving" legitimate articles at AfD; they don't deal with previously deleted material AFAIK. I am of the opinion that the AI is sort of ineffective, as many articles are abandoned and unedited for months (and for unsourced or poorly sourced incubated BLPs, this is not acceptable), but that it has the potential itself to be effective. I don't think the issue is with which articles to incubate (why bother limiting them?) but how to integrate the AI with established and widely used processes, such as AfD. Not that the AI is not yet established, but it's really just a lack of interest to helping not-ready articles that may have little chance at success. I suspect the issue is really just that no one wants to write articles for someone else (many of the original creators never edit the article after incubation) about someone/something they don't care about or know about. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a better articulation of what's to be gained by changing things here. If we're moving toward an environment where nothing gets "deleted" unless it's impermissible (not simply non-notable and/or unimproved), and where salvageable wrecks of articles can languish out of mainspace and out of the sights of search engines which honor NOINDEX, where there truly is no deadline, then I support it. If it's an attempt to curtail or restrict the use of non-mainspace for storage of good faith yet insufficient-quality articles, then I'm opposed. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I respectfully disagree with Jclemens. If the incubator is actually a place for articles are improved in a reasonable time then I support it. But if it's going to be a place for wrecks of articles to languish with no deadline, effectively becoming a webhost for anything and everything, then we're better off letting articles be improved through other processes and scrapping this experiment. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Shooter. The 'incubator' should be just that, and must not be a substitute for deletion. It must not be allowed to turn into a junkyard for articles nobody is prepared to work on. Junk is better off deleted. Articles can and should only be recreated when someone is prepared to put in the work. In that sense, the incubation period must be clearly defined, and articles removed if they have seen little or no improvement within the defined incubation period, and preferably by WP:CSD#G6 upon expiry. Incubator would benefit from being an active project, with 'permanent staff'. AFAICT, SilkTork seems to be one of the few prepared to do this job at the moment, but his efforts alone do not suffice. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that this project and Wikipedia as a whole would be served better if there was reasonable amount of time given for an article to "incubate" (I'd say 1 month). As in microbiology, if you don't see growth soonafter incubation, you probably won't see any further down the line. Angryapathy (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• This may be a stupid question, but why can't this be done with templates, rather than moving the article around? Just have one template that says that "deletion of this article has been put on hold for XX days while it is listed at the article salvage yard", and another that says "this is a newly created article for which comment has been solicited at the incubator. Please don't AfD it until XX". And give each template its own category, and the category puts the article into the appropriate sorting site. You might even set up more little specific categories. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Having just gone through the incubation process for an article that was deleted and then put through userfication then incubation, I will declare that I think there is most certainly a role that incubation can play here. BTW, the article is now going through a deletion review, as that seems to be the only current method to get some significant community input for getting the article moved to the main namespace again... in part due to some salting and some other issues that came up during the incubation process. In this case there was a "community" of people interested in editing the article, and even in the past month or so there has been substantial improvement in both the quality of the content and the quality of the sources noted in the article. I think other articles could certainly use this process, especially as I see this as a "success story" for the incubator. If we are looking at establishing policies here, I'd suggest looking at these "success stories" as perhaps a source of guidance to see what works here. What I especially appreciated about the incubator is that it gave the article some "breathing room" to develop. It also took six months from when the article was deleted until now, which is part of my motivation of those saying a 3 month time limit is sufficient to note it wasn't sufficient in this case. This article (currently at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin) needed something more than a simple article "rescue", and templates were also insufficient in terms of keeping folks who like to PROD and make AfDs away while the article was developed. I'm curious what other people had as experiences here for other "success stories"? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Procedure for outright deletion

What is the correct procedure for outright removal of a long-unimproved article? Does merely changing the status tag like this suffice to bring someone around with a mop? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It used to be. That practice was challenged by several editors as "out of process", and I was not able to get consensus for a new CSD category for stale incubated articles. Unless you can G4 it, you'll need to take it to MfD now apparently. Gigs (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And that is ridiculous. At any rate, I delete poorly sourced/unsourced and untouched BLPs in the incubator without MfD, just like the BLP prod process. If no one wishes to work on it for two months, leaving unsourced BLPs lying around is not helpful to anyone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• The exit route out of the incubator is tied into the entry route. We have existing procedures for dealing with deleting material, such as only being able to Prod an article once, and only being able to summarily/speedily delete material if they fit certain criteria. Mixing the entry routes would mean having more complex guidelines regarding the exit routes. The question needs to be asked as to what people are expecting of the incubator. The idea that it is a community alternative to single user userfication is attractive, though it depends on there being a body of people who are willing to work on the article moved here. I haven't finished my analysis of articles moved into the incubator, but early indications are that there was a small body of users who were very active when the incubator was set up, but who are no longer involved. Currently articles are being moved into the incubator inappropriately because once moved here they are ignored, which is not what people who are !voting in AfD are !voting for. Looking at AfD discussions where the result was Incubate, the belief is that the article is notable, but that it needs a clean up/more sources, so the decision is to move it here in the belief that people will work on it. The reverse is true. Even the main contributor tends to ignore the article once moved here. If the article had been left in mainspace it would have stood more chance of being improved. I think we need to be clear as to what we want to do with notable articles that need more sources or a clean up. Is hiding them away in the vaults the appropriate route? If the article is really a mess, and people are not willing or able to clean it up during the AfD period, then perhaps a decision needs to be made as to if the mess is so great that a clean delete is better, or if the notability and possible interest in the topic is enough to allow us to keep it a bit longer in mainspace. Perhaps there could be a time-limit imposed on dubious articles. Keep in mainspace for another 3 months, and then bring back to AfD for a second review, and if not cleaned up sufficiently, delete. I am moving more and more to the view that Incubation doesn't work, and is geared up not to work. Out of sight = out of mind. At least with userfication there is an individual who still retains some interest in the article. I'm going to finish my analysis and then call for a RfC in the new year. We need to either reinvigorate Incubation, or mark it historical. SilkTork *^YES! 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to delete long-unimproved articles when necessary. Feel free to ask me at my talk page anytime.

In reply to the above comment: I don't think it's true that userfication means there's an individual who maintains an interest in the article. I've personally forgotten completely about articles in my user space, and it was incubation that brought those back to life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal from category

As I understand it, articles in the incubator should not be in categories. Now, that's normally easily accomplished. But, what about in a case where a template puts an article in a category, such as Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film) in Category:British films? Is there a way to remove the category, while keeping the template visible. --Rob (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the category was added by {{Film UK}}, which I commented out. The page WP:Category suppression describes general methods like |nocat=true. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of incubation outside stated guidelines

There is a trial sub-project under way at Wikipedia:Wiki_Guides/New_pages which would permit incubation through this project to be used in ways which do not conform with the incubation criteria adopted here. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wiki_Guides/New_pages#Who_can_participate_in_this_project. Your participation in that discussion would, I am sure, be welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets call the whole thing off

There haven't been any new articles incubated in months, and as far as I can tell, nothing is moving on the incubated articles. Unless there's some good reason, I'll mark this whole project historical in a few days. Gigs (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um... now I'm confused. What about the new initiative described in the section above? Don't you think we should give it a chance? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - Article Incubator has had very little publicity, interest, or participation till now. I came to know of it only due to a banner and have begun using it. The trend towards softening our responses towards newbie editors requires us to retain this despite its relatively low utilisation in the past. AshLin (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mild Peril, they are off doing their own thing outside of what this incubation project was supposed to do. That can continue even if we kill this. Ashlin, you are probably referring to the Wiki Guides incubator, which has nothing to do with this wikiproject. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, the "My watchlist" special page shows a banner which says :

The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!

The "article incubation trial" link leads to this Wikipedia Guides page, which in turn points to Wikipedia:Article Incubator in the ninth line of section "Process", but strangely the Wikipedia:Article Incubator guidelines do not mention or reflect anything about the new initiative. It appears to me that the Wikipedia Guides and this project are linked together and not separate as you mentioned above, though it appears as if the editors actively involved in Article Incubation have not been brought on board which should have been done.

What I think is that if this new initiative to preserve worthwhile newbie articles is to succeed, we need to ignore the present requirement that incubator articles be selected only from "deletion" processes or "userspace" initiatives and instead add useful salvageable new articles identified while patrolling new pages, as has been mentioned in the WikiGuides|New Pages link.

AshLin (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems like an accurate summary. If the Wiki Guides want to "reinvent" incubation, then all the old incubation stuff should probably be marked historical so they can get a fresh start, since the old incubator project doesn't seem to have much or anything going on at this point. Gigs (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see any particular advantage to a "fresh start": on the contrary, I think use of the existing incubator could revitalise interest in the whole incubation project. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been the more recent deletionist atmosphere that has put off a lot of people (myself included), and the reframing of the project so it was only a delayed "soft" deletion approach. Back away from that and more people might join in. I felt people here only really wanted to find ways to delete the content, not improve it, there has been a paranoia about incubation being a sneaky way to avoid deletion. Fences&Windows 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support marking as historical Our long-standing policy has been to work upon article drafts in mainspace where editors and readers can find them using ordinary search and linking mechanisms. The incubation concept adds no value to this process but seems to disrupt it instead. Articles for creation seems more successful and it would be better to direct volunteers there. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Userbox relevant to Article Incubator

I have made a userbox intended for counting article "resuscitations" via WP:REFUND or here at the Incubator: {{User:Chaos5023/Userboxes/Reanimations}}. (See also my userboxen page for usage and display example.) Just FYI. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)