Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Group function in relation to other WikiProjects

As many of you might now, there are a number of other WikiProjects which currently use the article alert function, which notifies them of articles that they have "tagged" which have been nominated for deletion. For those editors who have specific areas of interest, it may be most beneficial for them to try to seek out aid from some of the projects that have tagged a given article, and maybe even form a small subgroup within the larger such projects, to help reduce the possibility of spending too much time on some perhaps less important articles and more on those that are more clearly deserving of such concerted efforts. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the "how to" of rescuing is to figure out which Wikiprojects may be appropriate, are they active, and notfying them. Each Wikiproject is vastly different and if something is at XfD is has less than a week so this issue is finding the right editor(s) asap. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly. However, like I said, the Wikipedia:Article alerts function is becoming, at least to some projects, pretty much part of the background landscape. I know I check the Chrsitianity WikiProject's developments pretty much as soon as I log in. I'm probably going to try to add it to several other projects as well. If it does become standard, then they will receive automatic notification of articles they've tagged. Whether they've actually tagged all the relevant articles is of course another question. John Carter (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I find a message alert more helpful. i think the article alerts can be set to do that but if not I think that would help. A static post just doesn't get the traffic as much as a new post on a page does. -- Banjeboi 07:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Most abused acronyms in an AfD

I have thought a lot about this list, and am finally putting it down in print, what would you add to this list and why? Is my numbering correct?

  1. WP:IINFO WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". This section names: "Plot summaries" "Lyrics databases" "Statistics" and "News reports", but editors often quote it for any list.
  2. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E "People notable only for one event". Used for any event, no matter how signifigant.

Ikip (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for WP:BLP1E, see my recent update to WP:OUTCOMES. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Lovely. After it'd been discussed elsewhere and in place for several days, one post here and it gets reverted[1] without meaningful comment within 10 minutes of this post. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not a closely watched page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No, but I would presume that WT:BLP is both more relevant and more closely watched than here, which is where the discussion actually took place. Something's wrong if describing a new consensus on an unrelated page immediately results in a reversion without discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh. It was reverted by Fritzpoll, who barely edited in the intervening two days. Plus, FP is active on BLP topics, but to my knowledge has never edited this talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
None of those are acronyms except for BLP1E, hehe.
On a more serious note, cruft is almost always used exactly the way it means, but bear in mind that if you're arguing that the level of detail is excessive you're going to at least be able to justify that claim if challenged. If not, well, making conclusions you can't support is blowing hot air.
As for WP:BLP1E, be very careful about this, but you can almost always rewrite the article, disposing of the affectation of a biography. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thinking about it, and after AMIB comments, I removed WP:Synth and WP:CRUFT. I still think that WP:IINFO is really abused though...Ikip (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
AMiB, if you're going to be pedantic, BLP1E isn't an acronym either. It's an initialism. Ha! yandman 09:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
1Es the one I encounter most frequently. They use all sorts, Some seem to grasp at the first policy that comes into their heads. When you look at the wording its clearly inapplicable , and it can be so obvious you feel almost like you’re insulting them to point it out. Grrrrrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean: WP:BLP1E? Ikip (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep thats the one. I dont yet have a seasoned ARS campaigners precision of expression :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The sad fact is that all Wikipedians use these initialisms as a crutch, some much more than others. My advice is to always be able to explain the policy or guideline in your own words before you use it, so that if challenged you can successfully defend its relevance. (And this might be a way to discourage their abuse -- get the other party to explain how a given acronym/initialism applies.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been toying with a way of making templates, that instead of typing WP:BLP1E, you would type: {{WP:BLP1E}} and the name of the policy would be listed fully, with a link to the page. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I turned it on but my browser does that for me. If I mouse over any internal link, it shows me the first few lines (including the full title) or the page the link points to. It's very useful. OlYellerTalktome 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Question. Is this all regarding the common outcomes page or something else? -- Banjeboi 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not regarding the common outcomes page. I just posted my ideas, and Jclemens then mentioned the outcomes page. Ikip (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTPAPER (not an acronym) is often cited as a blanket policy to justify any article, despite saying "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" pablohablo. 08:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • On WP:IINFO, while that section names a few examples, the page does point out earlier that "[t]he examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive; see WP:BEANS". Just because it's not specifically mentioned doesn't mean it's indiscriminate, although some analysis of what is and isn't indiscriminate is overdue. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible article for ARS to look at?

Resolved
 – Article not at AfD, if relaunched and re-nommed we may then be able to hep. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Read this and then this. Is that something you guys could save? While some of the sources look a bit weak, a quick skim suggests it could be suitable for an article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That article is substantially identical to the version that was deleted, which is why it was G4'd. If you can find good sourcing, that would be wonderful, but some of the sources given don't even exist -- the day and page numbers were given, but when I found them online, the book wasn't mentioned on that date and page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed for more details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version -- it's substantially identical to the version before I started deleting all the forums, yahoo answers, denied rumors, etc. out of it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The novel was originally self-published - and that was the situation when I first wrote the article. Now the writer has an agent, another award mention and a two-book deal with a publisher which regularly has books on the New York Times best Seller list. The original book is to be republished next year. Those, I believe, are major changes.(And, on a totally different note, the President's daughter, Malia Obama, named Fledgling Jason Steed as her favourite book in the April/May edition of Teen Vogue)--Beehold (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The answer to the first question is basically no. As this isn't being deleted presently we can't do much. However I do suggest the clean-up in userspace and recontacting folks from the previous AfD, escpecially DGG and seeing if they think it now demonstrates notability. My sense from that AfD was that it was simply too soon but if more relaible sources demonstrate that time has come then perhaps it has. DGG also suggested that an author article containing info on the book may be an acceptable route. -- Banjeboi 00:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged articles

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

Resolved
 – Deletion endorsed, relisting in a few months acceptable. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

policy/FAQ

Instead of having a bunch of fake "frequently asked questions", then, why not just have a statement of the scope and aims of the project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablomismo (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 May 2009

Ignoring your rather uncivil assertion, we already have those statements on our project page. -- Banjeboi 10:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring your assertion of incivility though, do you not think that if ARS is to have a FAQ section it should be a list of frequently asked questions? As I understand it that is what the acronym usually stands for. pablohablo. 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Calling our FAQ "fake" is uncivil, unhelpful and counter-productive. And frankly you seem to be simply arguing that if the exact wording of question X didn't occur then it's invalid. Sorry, you seem to be more interested in just arguing. I think based on the vociferous debate of a handful of folks a concise FAQ may help nip this battling in the bud. ARS members, well no one really, needs to be treated this way. FAQ is to help those who may actually need some guidance while our project page seems to fairly enough address any scope questions. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be named something else. Answers to what may be common questions, or explanations to further the understanding of what the squadron is about. Dream Focus 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's the {{FAQ}} template - FAQ seems to be the community standard. It may expand or change more but was posted to directly address the complaints from our critics; handily it also does address some of the more common issues that have been the source of drama. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "How can I get ARS to help win my policy discussion?" is neither frequently-asked, nor within the scope of this project. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The accusations, albiet from a small group who may never be satisfied, are quite common so this is preventative. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Even if that is correct, the current answer is clearly disputed. Fram (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
        • There is a difference between tweaking the wording and rewriting the entire scope. Your opinion that ARS should not be involved in any way in policy discussion is not shared by any community consensus of what Wikiprojects do. Thus the same answer could be applied to all Wikiprojects - that neutral notifications are acceptable. If you wish to change this you need to change it with all Wikiprojects instead of targeting this one. -- Banjeboi 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
          • When it is in the scope of the project, neutral notifications are welcome. Apart from the deletion policy (things like WP:POSTPONE or the extension of deletion debates to seven days), no policies or guidelines are in the scope of the ARS. This is the same for all wikiprojects. Notifying MilHist about WP:FICT would also be wrong, but without the notions of canvassing that will inevitably tar such a note to the ARS. Fram (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
            • If MilHist has fictional items under their watch, which is rather likely, then a neutral post there is also fine. As we are dealing with content across all subjects areas it's easy to see why we should be familiar with chnages to policies which govern if an article's benchmark for meeting notability or other aspect has moved, no? For me, I don't really know for instance comics very well, but we certainly get AfDs on them. If a new policy/guideline on those is in the works or seeking some fresh eyes I would feel that my outside opinion as one who may need to reference such an item may actually help. In any case the issue is moot if the notifications are neutral; if they are then the Wikiproject in question can ignore, discuss or even decide to act on such a post; if the notice isn't neatral then we work with the poster civilly to help neutralize the message while avoiding more disruption and then the Wikiproject in question can ignore, discuss or even decide to act on such a post. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
              • When a policy or guideline is actually changed, it may be useful for the ARS members to be aware of this. However, why should they, as a group, be informed that a discussion about some change is happening? ARS edits articles threatened with deletion to confirm to current policies and guidelines: why should they be involved in writing these policies and guidelines? Fram (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                • Obviously any Wikiproject should be involved in processes and discussions that impact thier work. Being advised that some policy has been enacted, after the fact seems out of process and counter to our consensus-building ethos. We want and encourage participation in these discussions to help ensure we come to the right decision. More viewpoints may bring about points that others had never or wouldn't otherwise consider. Being informed of decisions after the fact that affect the work you are doing? Wouldn't you feel like, just maybe, you could be part of the process or at least would appreciate the opportunity? -- Banjeboi 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
                • The ARS has no particular role in policy-making but the individual editors who make up the ARS are fully empowered to make policy. Editors are free to discuss policy here as there is no general rule forbidding this. The main test seems to be one of relevance - that the matter should not be off-topic. If the policy in question touches on the activities of the ARS, then it is good that we should discuss it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete rescue

Is there any part of ARS that rescues articles from the speedy delete queue? Quite often I decline a speedy delete, but the article needs more work to avoid it disappearing. Is it appropriate to add a {{rescue}} to that sort of article? For example Galileoscope or Scott Thompson (President of PayPal). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. All Wikipedians, in theory, work on all articles as they all need improving. Often CSD's that are saved get prodded and then AfD'd. {{rescue}} should be reserved for the AfD part. To hint to those reading the article you could add {{refimprove}} or similar clean-up template that encourage their help. Also adding {{find}} and appropriate Wikiproject tags to the talkpage can be useful. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Some proposals

To move forward, I have a few proposals for the project:

  • Rename, because "Squadron" has a military sound to it and "Wikipedia is not a battleground." Why not just title the group "Wikipedia:Article Rescue" just dropping off the "Squadron" or "Wikipedia:Article Rescuers" or "Wikipedia:Article Rescue Helpers".
  • Vote to elect a triumvirate of "leaders" (instead of something bland like "moderators," we could always have something more fun like "consuls"; Roman traditions aside, the term sounds like a "council" and the moderators would be more advisors anyway, offering their "counsel" if you see where I am going?) to help guide the project forward. Such "leaders" must have evidence of having been established members of the project with multiple rescue credits; i.e. those with a certain degree of credibility that they can bring to such a position.
  • Continue the effort on the contest proposal at Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2. Perhaps the first task of the consuls could be to judge this contest?

Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Article Rescue Squad is a cool sounding name and folk have said its one of the reasons they join. The pick of helpful civilian vehicles shows were not militaristic so Im opposed to the first proposal. 2)Im neutral about having leaders , although if we do consuls would be a cool name, although their main function was often to direct the army lol. I think we should have more than three, there are too many outstanding members. 3) I support the contest idea , and would definitely participate if I had more wiki time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
On the name I prefer including WikiProject in the name, as mentioned before, but if not, how about Wikipedia:Article Rescuers?
On the issue of a council, you are barrelling down the Esperanza route with that and will get the projecte deleted or closed.
Don't care about article rescue contests; I'm a deletionist after all, must maintain standards. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a bureaucracy would fix the problems, however well-meaning. You run the risk of increasing the problem of insularity and hostility, and even if you have a perfectly fair and even-handed council you run up against the general iconoclasm of Wikipedia editors with regard to empowered authority figures. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Any "problems" have to be fixed at their cause, not symptoms. I see the following:
  • Criticisms of the project are really criticisms of actions by some specific members rather than of the project itself.
  • Whether we have the ARS or not, we will still have rapid fire keep and delete votes rather than arguments in AfDs. We will still have accounts that show up and comment without making any effort to look for sources or improve the articles. A solution here would be requiring anyone who comments in an AfD to demonstrate evidence of having actually looked for sources and attempting to have improved the article in some manner per WP:BEFORE. To be blunt, I don't really care what the opinion of an article is by anyone who is not interested in helping to improve it. We are first and foremost here to build an encyclopedia, not serve as self-appointed judges. Even when I argue to delete, I typically at least make some format fixes while seeing if anything can be done to the article and link to source searches in my delete argument. If I can do it, so can others. And if people are not interested or willing to improve content, then what are they here for? The kind of delete argument that actually carries any legitimacy is one from someone who says, "I tried finding sources here, here, and here, and did what I could with the article, but am still unable to verify its contents or rewrite it in a suitable manner. If someone can prove me wrong, great, but I am unable to anything further." and then keep an eye on the discussion and if someone does indeed improve it, take that into consideration rather than the hit and run "per noms" that never return to the discussions even if it is improved. Put simply, certain members of the ARS that you criticize are responding to larger issues and these causes are what needs to be addressed first. A cough drop may help with coughing, but you need to take some pills to actually cure the disease.
  • We need to allow for more in the way of transwiking. I have done large numbers of transwiking to some of the wikis for which I am an admin, but we need more of that. Deletion without even transwiking transwikiable articles is downright unacceptable and rude. So long as the item is not a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, but is verifiable and relevant to someone, it must be discussed in AfDs where else it can be moved to and in fact actually moved there. Again, if anyone is unwilling to be considerate in at least that regard, then what the heck? We need to make a list of editors who are admins on various wikis that are willing to transwiki so they can be contacted during AfDs.
  • Now as an idea for reform, perhaps, membership should be limited to those who have rescued articles, i.e. you become a "member" by having presented evidence of having rescued articles rather than before ever doing so.
  • We must get greater participation in AfDs. We need a bot to notify all editors whoever worked on an AfD of the AfD. We have the same minority of accounts showing up in AfDs that cause them to fracture down the same divide. Look at the MASH episode AfDs or bilateral relations ones and you have the same half dozen accounts saying to delete versus the same half dozen to keep with only a handful of wild card accounts that show up. How does this actually reflect consensus? It looks nothing more than a game between two teams who repeat the same things against each other and who cannot possibly be experts on every single one of say those bilateral relations issues. We need much more from actual article writers and people familiar with sources and not the same partisan divides. Two solutions are to require anyone who comments in the AfD to show evidence of having looked for sources and having worked on the article and to notify anyone who has ever worked on the article of the AfD (people can always opt out of such notices).
Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well said. +1 --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Anyway, I have been working on User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes, which anyone is welcome to expand and/or correct, to give us a sense with at least regards to fictional elements as to where we can transwiki to. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything except point 2. There are some topics that are most certainly not notable (like for example my back garden) and any prerequisites on nominating or commenting at AFDs threatens to allow us to be completely overrun by nonsense articles. I slightly disagree with point 1, insofar as the project acts as a focal point for inappropriate behaviour at times. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Presumably your back garden would not pass WP:V or WP:RS. We don't need N for that. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
My back garden certainly doesn't pass WP:V, because I don't have one :D But discussing the repeal of WP:N isn't a matter for here. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
how about the name Article Rescue Team? i like the idea of a bot to notify anyone who edited an article that its at AfD; pohick (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_39&oldid=1144713154"