Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron: Difference between revisions
→Very questionable AfDs: Try WP:ANI or WP:AN or WT:AFD. |
|||
Line 935: | Line 935: | ||
:::The place to report it is in the AFD. The way to enforce [[WP:BEFORE]] is to do the work yourself, and [[WP:PRESERVE]] is already enforced by no consensus favoring keep. There is no "senseless deletion of other editors' contributions" line because it can't happen without forming a firm consensus to delete. If you want to defend something, the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] is on you to defend it with evidence. |
:::The place to report it is in the AFD. The way to enforce [[WP:BEFORE]] is to do the work yourself, and [[WP:PRESERVE]] is already enforced by no consensus favoring keep. There is no "senseless deletion of other editors' contributions" line because it can't happen without forming a firm consensus to delete. If you want to defend something, the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] is on you to defend it with evidence. |
||
:::Ultimately, this sort of article is why this project needs to exist, and rescuing them by improving the articles is laudable work. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, but potential notability. Remember, the job is to fix these articles so that they're useful to readers, not to [[WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything?|make policy to ensure they aren't deleted]]. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] - [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 07:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::Ultimately, this sort of article is why this project needs to exist, and rescuing them by improving the articles is laudable work. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, but potential notability. Remember, the job is to fix these articles so that they're useful to readers, not to [[WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything?|make policy to ensure they aren't deleted]]. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] - [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 07:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note''' [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting]] editor has copy and pasted the same text in over 100 AfDs. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force]]=== |
Revision as of 09:36, 5 May 2009
![]() | Article Rescue Squadron | |||
|
- Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
![]() |
For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list |
![]() |
There are currently 542 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Articles
Articles currently tagged for deletion
- Main page: Category: Articles for deletion
Articles currently tagged for deletion |
---|
|
Articles currently proposed for deletion
Articles currently proposed for deletion |
---|
|
All articles proposed for deletion |
---|
|
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) Notability. Alleged WP:COI. Acerbic discussion. Counting merger discussions, a previous deletion, etc., looks closer to a 4th nomination. Sourcing was poorly done. I've fixed references and links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons
- Wikipedia: Article Rescue Squadron - Biographies of living persons
- Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteers
Articles with topics of unclear notability
- Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability.
Articles with topics of unclear notability |
---|
|
Content
Files for discussion
- Main page: Wikipedia: Files for discussion
Categories for discussion
- Main page: Wikipedia: Categories for discussion
Categories for discussion |
---|
|
Templates for discussion
- Main page: Wikipedia: Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
- Main page: Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion
Redirects for discussion |
---|
Stub types for deletion
- Main page: Wikipedia: Stub types for deletion
Stub categories for deletion |
---|
Category Category:Stub categories for deletion not found |
Miscellany for deletion
Miscellany for deletion |
---|
|
Search all deletion discussions
![]() | About deleted articles
There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussions WP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting | ![]() |
Article alerts
- Main page: Wikipedia: Article alerts
Article alerts for ARS |
---|
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)
|
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. For example: 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)
|
New idea to recognize efforts
Collapsed for navigation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class
Collapsed for navigation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
|
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) |
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==
{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}} The template signs your name for you. It is part of:
|
Medals
Collapsed for navigation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here:
You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
|
ARS tools and possible tools discussion
AFD summaries
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)
|
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)
|
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. Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi ARS. I created {{findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ARS talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page
{{ARS/Tagged}} |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page: Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}} 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)
|
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)
ARS project development
Wikiads
See: Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Newsletter
Collapsed for navigation. |
---|
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:
...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
|
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)
|
Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template
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)
- A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I already wrote User:Ikip/Del which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.
- I also regularly post messages to new editors with promosing articles, for example: User_talk:Otomo#An_article_you_created_maybe_deleted_soon:_Tools_which_can_help_you
- 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)
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)
- I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD Proposal
Collapsed for navigation. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Contributing to some AfDs over the past two or three weeks was so horrifying and disturbing that I'm currently working on a proposal to change some things in the AfD process. Before I set it up in form to let the deletion troops place their s*** on it, we may discuss some points - and as a non-native speaker I will need your help anyway. What I want to change:
Well, take it as a starting point, not much more. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Excepting #3 and #6, you want to put teeth on things we already do all the time. AFD is already heavily criticized for being endlessly complex and bureaucratic, so adding more layers of complexity and bureaucracy will only aggravate this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Renew
I renew this discussion in the light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. I think especially point four about the look and length of the actual !vote would have prevented JB to successful manipulate AfDs for at least four years without notice. It is easy to mass !vote like "delete, non-notable, trivial coverage" or even "delete per..." without being suspected. It would be far more difficult to !vote in a more original (and longer) way, reflecting the actual article and reasons for the !vote, without bearing any significant resemblance in style, thus making it harder to manipulate. At least something has to change after this most disturbing case. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if starting a brand new (concise) thread would make sense per WP:TLDR? -- Banjeboi
- I'm no native speaker, it was hard enough for me to write the above section. But nobody seems to be interested anyway... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I started a new discussion at WT:AFD. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article
Discussion on background and concepts collapsed for navigation. | |
---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:
Some editors here mentioned a really good idea, to add one sentence which encourages editors to create a userfied article first. Userfication works like this, instead of making: ham sandwhich band a new editor would make user:ikip/ham sandwhich band. I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how this can be worded. And do you support this idea? Ikip (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was planning to make a this a proposal at the village pump—indeed, I still am—but I'm still trying to think through some issues. My main concern is that we don't want editors to waste effort building new articles in user space which then get promptly deleted when they are moved to article space. Drafting in user space doesn't help if the new article's subject matter is already covered in an existing article, or if the subject genuinely isn't notable enough. Won't we need some sort of support system (e.g. my outline below) on top of the basic idea? Feedback would be very helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Another passing comment, and supplementary qquestion - as many, many new articles by new users are copyright violations or attack pages, encouraging new users to create articles in userspace would therefore mean there would be more copyvios and attacks in userspace. Would this not create patrol problems? Currently when monitoring recent changes I tend to ignore userspace. pablohablo. 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, really there are three strands here:
Ikip is re-starting the first strand on (struck) Where should we discuss the other two? - Pointillist (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new addition to new articlesPointillist had a good idea for the userfication noticfication, which I will move here. 1 to 3 is the original, which everyone sees when they create a new article. 4 is the new section:
The biggest priority is to make the new userefication section as short and concise as possible. The beauty of this new sentence is: [[User:{{REVISIONUSER}}/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]], which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Moving forward
- Has this proposal died or just stalled? Or has it progressed somewhere without a link to it here?
- In any case I'd suggest adjusting the original points to introduce the idea like this:
|
Mark Hurd (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It is no bad idea to encourage users to work up articles in userspace until they are ready to be pushed out of the nest. However … A lot of articles that are rightfully speedy-deleted are unsourced/negative BLPs or copyright violations. A lot of these are created by new or inexperienced users. Such pages would, I understand, still be eligible for deletion even in userspace, therefore userspace would have to be patrolled more rigorously - many recent changes/new pages patrollers currently ignore, or pay less attention to, userspace. pablohablo. 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Here are some changes I made, incorporating many of Mark's sections. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- So is this going somewhere as a proposed change? -- Banjeboi 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I like that text, but it's not fair to imply that you can get your new article into shape in user space without saying something about potential libel and copyvio issues. As Franamax said in NPP Cautious approach "some editors may use the technique of copy-pasting in a copyvio to start an article, then progressively rewrite the whole thing into an original presentation." I'd hoped NOINDEX would help, but that didn't fly, so how about adding a fifth bullet something like this (below)? - Pointillist (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|
- If this was said concisely perhaps combine the two like:
- You can also draft a new article here: Special:MyPage/Article Rescue Squadron. You still must avoid libellous claims and infringing on copyright material. You can work on the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help on it, and then move it onto the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go.
- Does this help? -- Banjeboi 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- The current template has no such warning for regular pages, so I don't see why this one should. The idea was to make this as short as possible. Each one of the existing lines is short. Ikip (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered either way, if it's not needed just drop the sentence. Can it be launched as a proposal whever it's to happen? -- Banjeboi 10:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that sentence was to address Franamax's concern about copyvio—it isn't essential on day one (I was just thinking it might smooth the path for the proposal). Once the feature is implemented we'll soon see how well it is working: if copyvio/libel in user sandboxes turns out to be a significant problem, then we can adjust the wording. - Pointillist (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered either way, if it's not needed just drop the sentence. Can it be launched as a proposal whever it's to happen? -- Banjeboi 10:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- The current template has no such warning for regular pages, so I don't see why this one should. The idea was to make this as short as possible. Each one of the existing lines is short. Ikip (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does this help? -- Banjeboi 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest then propsing without the copyvio sentence but mentioning it as a possible addition. Can this go forward now? -- Banjeboi 18:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron?
- Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron? In particular, should the {{rescue}} tag be applied to templates currently at templates for deletion? 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed for space. Discussion closed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comments
Outdent. The issue remains the same, we don't punish an editor for misusing this or any other teplate, we work to ensur ethey dont do it again. Likewise we don't accuse an entire Wikiproject for something that one editor may or may not have done. The rest is just bickering and it seems only to show emnity against the many editors here. It's unhelpful and you can consider your concern duly noted. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
Motion to close
Seems there is consensus to allow templates and issues how to proceed forward have also been laid out. Can we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nom. 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) -- Banjeboi
- I second the motion. OlYellerTalktome 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain what you mean by "issues [on] how to proceed forward"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- That tweaks to; the project's mainpage and the template page should take place; template-specific parameters created so when {{rescue}} is added it displays not only the correct link (that works already) but also template-specific content rather than article-specific content. Also this is a good excuse to create the subpage on how to rescue content and templates would have its own section. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see that consensus. Users opposed include me, Pablo, Chris Cuningham, and Stifle. Users supporting include Benjiboi, OlYeller, JClemens, Mark Hurd, TonyTheTiger, Ikip, and Colonel Warden. Other comments came from DGG, Taemyr, AllStar, Ludwigs2, and AMiB. That's not really a consensus, and certianly not one to be decided by an involved editor. Perhaps it would be better if some examples of TfD's were given where people would want to add the rescue tag (the one example we had was not rescued), so that we can see if there would be a need for this, if this would give us any potential benefit, or if on the other hand it would only bring more rescuers to the discussion without actually doing anything about the templates (the "content", if one can call it that). Fram (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may be more constructive to see if an uninvolved editor could see if my read on consensus is accurate or not and if not suggest a way forward. Given the acrimony I'm hesitant to start quibbling over examples and hypotheticals. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be constructive if at least one example of a recent or current TfD was provided where you consider the addition of the ARS tag to be relevant, needed, useful, ...? Now, we have a discussion if templates are "content" which can be "rescued" somehow, or are just navigational tools, or something else. Furthermore, it is absoluetly unclear if the RfC was in the end about TfD or XfD (including MfD, i.e. userpages and so on? What would the ARS do with userpages?). I don't believe the RfC has a consensus or that it could be clear what the conclusion was in the end. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- TfD vs. XfD, this was technically regarding TfD a seperate discussion likely should take place to see if this speaks to XfD in general; in spirit I think it does but I'm also in no rush to use it elsewhere as we have a lot of housecleaning first. And no, if there is disagreement that there is consensus here I think it would just serve to cloud the issues to quibble on example X vs example Y. ARS' involvement in TfDs was questioned and answered so either that answer is accepted as reasonable or not. -- Banjeboi 14:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be constructive if at least one example of a recent or current TfD was provided where you consider the addition of the ARS tag to be relevant, needed, useful, ...? Now, we have a discussion if templates are "content" which can be "rescued" somehow, or are just navigational tools, or something else. Furthermore, it is absoluetly unclear if the RfC was in the end about TfD or XfD (including MfD, i.e. userpages and so on? What would the ARS do with userpages?). I don't believe the RfC has a consensus or that it could be clear what the conclusion was in the end. Fram (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may be more constructive to see if an uninvolved editor could see if my read on consensus is accurate or not and if not suggest a way forward. Given the acrimony I'm hesitant to start quibbling over examples and hypotheticals. -- Banjeboi 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Doing... currently reading the discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with Benjiboi's assessment in that there does seem to be a rough consensus for including the templates within the project scope. That aside, the potential benefits of doing so outweigh the concerns, in my opinion as an uninvolved administrator. Fram raised a good point above; an example or two would indeed be useful. As well, it is disappointing that the discussion was bloated with back-and-forth arguing, for lack of a better word, but when it boils down, consensus here seems to be on Benjiboi's side. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Evaluation - I spent quite some time reading the discussion, condensing the arguements, and weighing people's rationale. The signal-to-noise ratio in the comments and replies could have been better, but I think I have a clear picture of consensus. Note that the original proposal concerned TfD, but the majority of the arguments discussed XfD. In my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, there is rough consensus for the following:
- All items (XfD) that are "rescuable" (can be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) should go to the rescue squad (get tagged with {{rescue}}).
- Items (XfD) that are not "rescuable" (cannot be improved, cleaned up, sourced, notability demonstrated) must not be tagged with {{rescue}}
- Using {{rescue}} (or other means) to canvass for !votes in a deletion discussion must be highly discouraged.
- Seconded. Re-evaluation in a couple months is not a bad suggestion though. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) +note 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Appreciate this and bit by bit we'll work through this. In reality we have learned that no matter what we do, all templates are abused and misapplied at times. To cause the least disruption we encourage ARS members to simply focus on rescuing items they can and don't stress on the rest. So if someone adds {{rescue}} to something we can't help on? It's ignored or maybe we'll comment on alternatives to why we can't help. One of the efforts that was stalled here because of the edit-warring was creating a "so you've used the rescue tag" as an auto-message for whoever places the tag. This should help in the case of a potential repeat "abuser". Our goal woudld be to get them to add the sourcing and notability or at least understand why an item likely would be deleted (it's not personal). As well as helping them understand wikiways and policies. I know, admirable, but I think it's worth a try. It's also worth noting that when folks make poor comments at XfD, regardless of the nature, they should be address and summarily weighted by the closer. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: As an uninvolved but invited commenter, I couldn't put it better than LinguistAtLarge's analysis.
(But I will ramble, in case it is helpful...) Any system if abused will start to break, so don't abuse it else ARS will stop being useful altogether. As a side-suggestion, it might be a good idea to offer alternatives for cases where it might be disputed whether something is "rescuable" or not - if you think another editor will seriously doubt the applicability, then instead use the following methods: [list alternatives at the {{rescue}} /doc page and at the WP:ARS mainpage]. Such as, a pointer to one of the WikiProject Deletion sorting lists, so that additional eyeballs can be gathered in an appropriate way. Lastly, if it starts to become an insurmountable problem, agree to reevaluate the change in a few weeks or months. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC) - Comment As another invited but uninvolved administrator, I'll agree that there is a rough consensus. I think A Man In Black is correct to have concerns though. If these TfD alerts only translate into "keep" votes and no actual content improvement, then their purpose would appear to be canvassing only. I'd also caution against the dismissive and even biting treatment AMIB's criticisms received. His views aren't contradictory to this project, but his criteria does seem to be more strident. That's not a bad thing, and I'd argue that his responses here show that he has really thought through what needs rescuing far beyond just voting keep at every AfD. AniMatetalk 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- AMIB has shown a rather persistent disdain for this project and has been causing, IMHO, stress to the project for a long time. They do have some valid concerns but that is seperate from the regular accusations. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replying with more disdain isn't really addressing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was in the process of trying to address the last set of accusations when you started edit warring to remove a link to a TfD. I think it's clear you don't approve of this project, sticking around to poke and warn us to not break rules seems like a really bad idea. You've offered some constructive criticism at times but that is harder to hear when added with the more divisive issues. Let's agree that you have some valid points but if no one is hearing them it doesn't matter. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Attack, attack, attack, archive. I am "accusing" your proposal of not being a good one, based on your stated goals and reasoning, as well as existing Wikipedia policy. I'm not impugning your good faith or the good faith of the project as a whole; but I don't approve of this proposal. There is tremendous potential for abuse in what this project is allowed to do and in this project's tools, however, and as such a certain level of justification of the good that can be accomplished versus the risk of abuse is necessary. I'm "sticking around" to see that good work done, and "warn" that the tools should not be misused. (Do you have an argument that doesn't involve attacking me?) I'm still uncomfortable with your (lack of) an explanation of what good adding the {{rescue}} tag to non-articles will do, and "bringing more eyes to deletion discussions" is exactly the abuse I've been protesting. That's what canvassing is; bringing a group of like-minded editors to a discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's really hard to accept anything you have to say when it's delivered in this way. We've had an RfC and consensus has been reached with agreement that {{rescue}} can indeed be used on TfD's. This is what you were edit-warring over and the consensus has gone against your take on the issue despite your repeated assertions of canvassing and abuse - potential or otherwise. Your alarmist approach is unhelpful and now you seem prepared to simply disrupt. I doubt that you can find I've attacked you at all, if you feel i have I apologize. I'm simply trying to do the work that this Wikiproject does which apparently you don't approve. It is also your belief that {{rescue}} doesn't belong on non-article XfDs but this RfC has shown consensus against you there as well. I also accept you may sincerely believe that having more eyes on a XfD is harmful in some ways - perhaps that's a more theoretical discussion for various XfD boards to take up? These beliefs are yours to have and hold as you see fit but how you behave is impacting this project negatively and needs to stop. You threatened me if I posted a TfD link here so I started an RfC to put the issue to rest, consensus has sided that rescue tags can be used on TfDs and this is directly attributable to your helping the community have a discussion centered on this issue. Every question you have stated and every generalized "concern" has also been addressed. Belabouring this further suggests an interest not in improving this project and the work we do but in disrupting the work we do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't address my argument. You can call me a gaptoothed baboon if you like, but you need to actually address my arguments instead of attacking my person.
Bringing editors sympathetic to your viewpoint to a discussion is canvassing. You've proposed bringing more eyes to deletion discussions, but the fact is that those eyes are almost always sympathetic to someone who would tag an article for {{rescue}}. (A Nobody saying "Much as I hate to vote for deletion on an article tagged with {{rescue}}..." is an especially clear example.) Bringing this project's eyes onto the deletion discussion, instead of on content that is up for deletion, is not appropriate. A number of closers here have pointed out that this needs to be kept in mind.
Now, there are some decent arguments for good that can be done on templates that are up for deletion; I respectfully disagree on how many templates are deleted because they are badly implemented versus how many are deleted because they are bad ideas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't address my argument. You can call me a gaptoothed baboon if you like, but you need to actually address my arguments instead of attacking my person.
- It's really hard to accept anything you have to say when it's delivered in this way. We've had an RfC and consensus has been reached with agreement that {{rescue}} can indeed be used on TfD's. This is what you were edit-warring over and the consensus has gone against your take on the issue despite your repeated assertions of canvassing and abuse - potential or otherwise. Your alarmist approach is unhelpful and now you seem prepared to simply disrupt. I doubt that you can find I've attacked you at all, if you feel i have I apologize. I'm simply trying to do the work that this Wikiproject does which apparently you don't approve. It is also your belief that {{rescue}} doesn't belong on non-article XfDs but this RfC has shown consensus against you there as well. I also accept you may sincerely believe that having more eyes on a XfD is harmful in some ways - perhaps that's a more theoretical discussion for various XfD boards to take up? These beliefs are yours to have and hold as you see fit but how you behave is impacting this project negatively and needs to stop. You threatened me if I posted a TfD link here so I started an RfC to put the issue to rest, consensus has sided that rescue tags can be used on TfDs and this is directly attributable to your helping the community have a discussion centered on this issue. Every question you have stated and every generalized "concern" has also been addressed. Belabouring this further suggests an interest not in improving this project and the work we do but in disrupting the work we do. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Attack, attack, attack, archive. I am "accusing" your proposal of not being a good one, based on your stated goals and reasoning, as well as existing Wikipedia policy. I'm not impugning your good faith or the good faith of the project as a whole; but I don't approve of this proposal. There is tremendous potential for abuse in what this project is allowed to do and in this project's tools, however, and as such a certain level of justification of the good that can be accomplished versus the risk of abuse is necessary. I'm "sticking around" to see that good work done, and "warn" that the tools should not be misused. (Do you have an argument that doesn't involve attacking me?) I'm still uncomfortable with your (lack of) an explanation of what good adding the {{rescue}} tag to non-articles will do, and "bringing more eyes to deletion discussions" is exactly the abuse I've been protesting. That's what canvassing is; bringing a group of like-minded editors to a discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well I was in the process of trying to address the last set of accusations when you started edit warring to remove a link to a TfD. I think it's clear you don't approve of this project, sticking around to poke and warn us to not break rules seems like a really bad idea. You've offered some constructive criticism at times but that is harder to hear when added with the more divisive issues. Let's agree that you have some valid points but if no one is hearing them it doesn't matter. -- Banjeboi 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Replying with more disdain isn't really addressing this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- AMIB has shown a rather persistent disdain for this project and has been causing, IMHO, stress to the project for a long time. They do have some valid concerns but that is seperate from the regular accusations. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Outdent. Despite your claims I still haven't attacked you. I may disagree with you but I respect your right to have and voice your opinion and you seem to be doing so repeatedly. Perhaps we're talking past each here, I'm personally not invested or interested in arguing with you or anyone else. You seem to be holding onto a theory that rescue tag equals canvassing yet the community has generally agrred to allow things to move forward at this time suggesting that if problems appear then perhaps re-address the issue with solid evidence. As for which argument you feel I haven't addressed, I actually have. I think I even repeated it because you asked again. You'll find that informatin in the RfC discussion itself. I'm not sure anyone will ever convince you the rescue tag on TfDs isn't canvassing but luckily there is consensus to allow it so it seems no one has to win you over at this point. -- Banjeboi 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I too was invited, and have no previous involvement. I slogged through the discussion, and found there to be consensus. Here's my take on the canvassing dilemma: The project's name is misleading, focusing on the save, rather than the fix. I think that editors pulled in for a rescue should edit the article without voting in the deletion discussion. That's the purpose of the rescue squad: to fix articles, not be a vote-wielding special interest group. Though the rescuers should be allowed and expected to report in the discussion on what they fixed. Then the closing admin can decide if the changes made address the concerns raised. To avoid conflict of interest, the closing admin should not be on the ARS. The Transhumanist 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonable sounding; the easy part first is that closing admins need to be impartial and handle those calls on their end. I wouldn't support restricting how ARS members are involved on the AFD except that policies are followed. The name issue is being discussed but I disagree rescue is more about keep than fix but it's worth noting the concerns. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: the concerns are quite important. The "rescue" group should possibly be retitled to "fixup" (or that their role would be fully clarified) as to their role for fixing-up salvageable content rather than "rescue" anything up for deletion. Maybe "Salvage Review Crew" would be a good re-title.. just sharing my 2 cents. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Such ideas are impractical because AFD is open to all and there is no way to identify and allocate specific roles to the participants. One might wish that all participated in the manner of User:Uncle G who often makes very helpful observations without expressing a Keep/Delete vote. I suppose that he is trying to encourage collegiate research and editing rather than adversarial voting but his is a lone instance of such exemplary behaviour, alas. Current practise is that both the nominator of an AFD and the article's authors are encouraged to participate. The ARS seem more qualified to comment than drive-by per-nom voters, as the process of rescue usually involves careful study of the topic and its sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Renaming ideas are helpful but realistically I think rescue is fine. We are, after all the last layer of emergency help for content that will be deleted. Salvage is after an item has been thrown out. Fixup applies to all clean-up projects whereas we specialize in XfD. I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer rescue=vote keep and generally no group should base its naming decisions on a small but persistent group of critics. The LGBT community would be the "We're not all diseased and depraved freaks coalition." Not suggesting you're a critic - you may be I don't know - but these issues have been discussed rather extensively over many many months and all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address til recently when this RfC was enacted to help stop edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- "all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address"? Yeah right, they have been either ignored or supported by the members of the ARS, and only addressed by the "critics". Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- "all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address"? Yeah right, they have been either ignored or supported by the members of the ARS, and only addressed by the "critics". Fram (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Renaming ideas are helpful but realistically I think rescue is fine. We are, after all the last layer of emergency help for content that will be deleted. Salvage is after an item has been thrown out. Fixup applies to all clean-up projects whereas we specialize in XfD. I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer rescue=vote keep and generally no group should base its naming decisions on a small but persistent group of critics. The LGBT community would be the "We're not all diseased and depraved freaks coalition." Not suggesting you're a critic - you may be I don't know - but these issues have been discussed rather extensively over many many months and all issues of canvassing have been thoughtfully and methodically address til recently when this RfC was enacted to help stop edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion of interest.
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)
- 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)
- It was suggested to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? -- Banjeboi 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Motto
Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?
“ | ...Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy... | ” |
— Barack Obama, President of the United States of America |
TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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;
“ | ” |
- Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Stricken. Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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.)
- Simple and direct are both good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.
— Winston S. Churchill
- I like that one. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:
“ | Some things can be fixed | ” |
Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- Lol! Luv it. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Word, I like this one. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYellerTalktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Proposed name change for ARS
Collapsed for space. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I've never made a proposal for a project name change so please make changes to the format of this proposal if needed. As there has been a discussion going on about the scope of ARS regarding what what type of file (article, template, pic, etc) the {{rescue}} tag can be used for, I propose a change to the projects name. I propose that we change the name from Article Rescue Squadron to Discussion
|
Conclusion
It's been about 7 days since I started to proposal. I couldn't find a guideline that specifically states how proposals should go but I assume that 7 days from the last reply is enough time. I counted 4 changes, 2 no changes, an open-to-change, and one undecided. It also seems that it should be explicitly clarified that this project's focus should still be articles. I don't want to start another proposal myself in case I do something wrong but if someone else wants to start a discussion about it, at least 5 people are open to a change while 2 are opposed to a name change. OlYellerTalktome 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Proposal started in the midst of an RfC so may have been malformed or at least seen as malformed. Further discussion should likely center on the realities of what we do, what we could do and possible names in light of that information. Also a suggestion was made that more then one name could be used if they redirected here but I think more than a couple would cause more problems then they would solve. -- Banjeboi 10:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I missed the discussion, but why not call it Emergency Notable Content Sourcers to make is clear that you shouldn't try to "rescue" non-notable stuff, rather you should source and clean up notable content? You could even rename {{rescue}} to {{emergency sourcing}}. ENCS - has a nice ring to it. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Canvasing rules clearly state it is alright to contact main contributors to an article to work with the Rescue Squadron's goals
The WP:canvassing rules clearly state that you can contact those who made significant edits to an article, to tell them its up for deletion.
Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion (while keeping in mind excessive cross-posting below). For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion; or perhaps to a Wikipedian known for being an expert in a related field and has shown interest in participating in related discussions. A template such as {{Please see}} may help in leaving these notices.
Remember, it isn't possible for editors to have everything they ever worked on, on their watchlist, there just too much stuff to sort through each day. So they won't know that something they contributed heavily to, and surely want to help preserve(by working on the article's issue, and joining in the AFD discussion), is being considered for deletion. You are allowed to contact them to join in the discussion. Dream Focus 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with anything? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to find people willing to work on an article, as is the Rescue Squadron's goals, you can do so by contacting those who have contributed to the article in the past. I thought it relevant to mention it here. Nothing to do with recent events, I just reading the top part of the Canvasing rules, and thinking of this. Dream Focus 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Take canvassing and whatnot are completely off the table; deletion discussions are made by a panel or something.
- What is gained by contacting previous editors of the article? If they could improve an article to show notability clearly, wouldn't they have done so already? {{rescue}} brings new eyes to the article, to clean it up. Haven't the old eyes already done what they can? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no. For much of the wikipedia's life, you didn't need any proof of notability from any third party media sources. So no one bothered getting it. Even now many work on articles, and never bother with that. And sources aren't always easy to find with a simple Google search. Anyone who has done a significant amount of work on an article, should be notified their work is up for destruction. No AFD should ever be done in secret(yes, its listed, but most won't notice in time, few people checking that list even once a week). Dream Focus 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The notification of editors is susceptible to gaming (both "Oops, I forgot to notify people, oh well" and "Hey, you're related in the most tangential way and you agree with me") and, more importantly, susceptible to laziness. Requiring notification is going to make an already bureaucratic process even more bureaucratic and won't kill the gaming (unless you happen to have a bulletproof definition of "significant contributor" laying around).
- How would you notify everyone in a less patchwork manner that articles need to meet such-and-such standard or they risk deletion? "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references may quickly be deleted" is at the top of the article creation page. The AFD notice is large and obtrusive at the top of the page. The AFD period was recently extended. {{rescue}} already offers links directly to handy resources.
- I'm genuinely curious. How do we help people know that unsourced may be taken for unsourcable if they don't do something about it in a way that is not susceptible to gaming? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no. For much of the wikipedia's life, you didn't need any proof of notability from any third party media sources. So no one bothered getting it. Even now many work on articles, and never bother with that. And sources aren't always easy to find with a simple Google search. Anyone who has done a significant amount of work on an article, should be notified their work is up for destruction. No AFD should ever be done in secret(yes, its listed, but most won't notice in time, few people checking that list even once a week). Dream Focus 11:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to find people willing to work on an article, as is the Rescue Squadron's goals, you can do so by contacting those who have contributed to the article in the past. I thought it relevant to mention it here. Nothing to do with recent events, I just reading the top part of the Canvasing rules, and thinking of this. Dream Focus 11:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO even suggests contacting those editors, which about no nominator does. You can't block an editor who does the job of the nominator. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good find! I wonder if someone can make a bot to do that automatically for all articles up for deletion. Since they have a tool listed there, which checks for the most contributions, shouldn't be too hard to grab all those names and send them a message. And in the unlikely event anyone doesn't want to get the message, then they should be able to opt out of it. Where do I go to suggest such a bot be made? Can AutoWikiBrowser do that automatically already? Dream Focus 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- How would you determine "significant editor"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Number of edits and/or size of adds to the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- What would you tell them, and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just take a look at WP:AFDHOWTO for standard templates and reasons to post them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Policy and guidelines aren't holy writ. I was asking you why you think it's a good idea, or how you would improve on the current way of doing things. I outlined some of the pitfalls of the current practice above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not all articles are tagged for WikiProjects. This inludes even topics related to e.g. Star Wars or Pink Floyd where one could think they all are tagged already. No, they're not. So tagging or at least informing the WikiProject seems a good thing to do, if you don't want to keep experts out of the AfD. The article creator should have the article on his watchlist, but if it's a new editor he should be informed about what he can do. I know of several cases where new editors left the project soon after their first articles were deleted. Telling them what they can do seems to be the better choice than running many potentially good editors out of the door. Other editors, who contributed to a nominated article maybe one year ago might not have it on their watchlist but may still be able to improve it. You ask why they didn't do that before - well, it's just a question of time and one of priority. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- How would you tell new editors what they can do?
- On a bit of a different tack, how do we better impress on editors that they need to make the notability of notable article subjects clear, so to save everyone the trouble of going to AFD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- {{AFDWarningNew}} Sorry, but I have better things to do on my Sunday than answering your trolling around. Find somebody else to play with... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- A shame. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, even more being an admin. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The sniping is all well and good, but I'm more interested in who we should contact, why, and how best to do so. I'm an admin, I'm a Wookiee, I'm a radioactive lizard, whatever, I was just trying to get your input on that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- My input? You? Why? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because AFD is a huge amount of heat and oftentimes very little light. I want to find ways to encourage people to do things right the first time, encourage people to fix things they got wrong, and encourage people who can fix something but haven't (yet) to do so. And I want to find ways to reduce the heat, by discouraging people to come to AFD to fight, by making sure people don't come to AFD to get mad at the people who just want to clean up the encyclopedia. More than once, I've had to dig into some sort of off-wiki forum to explain why AFD exists, why articles are deleted, and what people can do to fix them and prevent this. You'll find a lot of forum threads with the header "Wikipedia is a bunch of fascists!" with my explanations of what's actually going on hidden on page four or something.
- Just bringing people to AFD won't do that, especially if it's done haphazardly, and the current system is a haphazard way of bringing people to AFD without arming them with any knowledge of what's going on. I'm pretty pessimistic about it, because I make a point of dealing with the failed cases. I know that's a limited viewpoint. I wanted to know what you liked about the current way of doing things, and what you think could be done better.
- So help me out? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- My input? You? Why? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The sniping is all well and good, but I'm more interested in who we should contact, why, and how best to do so. I'm an admin, I'm a Wookiee, I'm a radioactive lizard, whatever, I was just trying to get your input on that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, even more being an admin. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- A shame. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- {{AFDWarningNew}} Sorry, but I have better things to do on my Sunday than answering your trolling around. Find somebody else to play with... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not all articles are tagged for WikiProjects. This inludes even topics related to e.g. Star Wars or Pink Floyd where one could think they all are tagged already. No, they're not. So tagging or at least informing the WikiProject seems a good thing to do, if you don't want to keep experts out of the AfD. The article creator should have the article on his watchlist, but if it's a new editor he should be informed about what he can do. I know of several cases where new editors left the project soon after their first articles were deleted. Telling them what they can do seems to be the better choice than running many potentially good editors out of the door. Other editors, who contributed to a nominated article maybe one year ago might not have it on their watchlist but may still be able to improve it. You ask why they didn't do that before - well, it's just a question of time and one of priority. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Policy and guidelines aren't holy writ. I was asking you why you think it's a good idea, or how you would improve on the current way of doing things. I outlined some of the pitfalls of the current practice above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just take a look at WP:AFDHOWTO for standard templates and reasons to post them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- What would you tell them, and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Number of edits and/or size of adds to the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 12:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- How would you determine "significant editor"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good find! I wonder if someone can make a bot to do that automatically for all articles up for deletion. Since they have a tool listed there, which checks for the most contributions, shouldn't be too hard to grab all those names and send them a message. And in the unlikely event anyone doesn't want to get the message, then they should be able to opt out of it. Where do I go to suggest such a bot be made? Can AutoWikiBrowser do that automatically already? Dream Focus 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BEFORE / WP:AFDHOWTO even suggests contacting those editors, which about no nominator does. You can't block an editor who does the job of the nominator. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually I'm pessimistic too. The project seems to be against the slightest change in AfD policy, even after several recent cases, User:JamesBurns being the most prominent one. You want a system that's easy enough for newbies to be understood? I want a system that's transparent enough for user's like you and me to look through. A system that can't be gamed that easily for several years without notice. About off-wiki: I don't know even one person who contributes to Wikipedia. Of course some use it, as WP articles usually pop up high on Google, but generally people have bad feelings about it - at least all of my friends, relatives and colleagues. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily arguing for a simplification of AFD, but instead trying to find out how we can better arm people to understand why an article would be brought up for deletion and what that means and how they can respond. I feel that's the intent of the notification of article contributors; do you disagree? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- People are not interested in reading policy before contributing to AfDs. The standard templates already in use (but by far not always!) are a poor excuse for accusing newbies at AfDs. Well, they're better than nothing at least. My wish to have understandable and therefore vulnerable nominations, !votes and closures might help newbies to understand AfD policy. Half sentences certainly do not, like everything else included at WP:ATA. It's not the casual editors who have to change, it's us. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand how that addresses any of my questions; I'm not sure this is a meaningful dialogue. I suspect I'm not asking the right questions. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think people would understand AfD policy better if there were less nominations like "Article about non-notable band.", less !votes like "delete per nom" and less closures like "the result was delete" - in my eyes that is the problem leading to accusations of Wikipedia being fascist. Newbies and casual editors don't know about AfD history, they don't know the inclusion/deletion cabals and troops. I guess they don't even want to know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- True - not to mention my recent favorite: "Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE." How do we cut down on AfD spamming?!? Radiopathy •talk• 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think people would understand AfD policy better if there were less nominations like "Article about non-notable band.", less !votes like "delete per nom" and less closures like "the result was delete" - in my eyes that is the problem leading to accusations of Wikipedia being fascist. Newbies and casual editors don't know about AfD history, they don't know the inclusion/deletion cabals and troops. I guess they don't even want to know. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand how that addresses any of my questions; I'm not sure this is a meaningful dialogue. I suspect I'm not asking the right questions. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- People are not interested in reading policy before contributing to AfDs. The standard templates already in use (but by far not always!) are a poor excuse for accusing newbies at AfDs. Well, they're better than nothing at least. My wish to have understandable and therefore vulnerable nominations, !votes and closures might help newbies to understand AfD policy. Half sentences certainly do not, like everything else included at WP:ATA. It's not the casual editors who have to change, it's us. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily arguing for a simplification of AFD, but instead trying to find out how we can better arm people to understand why an article would be brought up for deletion and what that means and how they can respond. I feel that's the intent of the notification of article contributors; do you disagree? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Getting off on unrelated things. As I pointed out in a conversation with Black Kite recently, when you go to create a new article, it doesn't tell you how to make it first on your user page. If they did that straight away, and explained things clearly to people, there wouldn't be a problem. Don't expect them to navigate through a dozen different things to find out information about that and various policies and guidelines. This will help cut back on the number of new articles created, and nominated, before having time to grow. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, what I meant by AfD spamming is an AfD where the nominator obviously was not familiar with - or convieniently ignores - WP:BEFORE when nominating. Dream Focus's points are well taken. Radiopathy •talk• 18:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do we have a guide to making new articles somewhere? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- ARS doesn't but there is Wikipedia:Starting an article. -- Banjeboi 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This seems to be directly addressed by the thread above Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article.
Can this be closed and archived now? It seems opinions have been expressed and an actual change is being discussed under another thread. -- Banjeboi 18:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?
- 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. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support - couldn't hurt, although
an articlearticles with various tags onitthem should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy •talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Support - What Jclemens said. OlYellerTalktome 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- ...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)
- 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. Dream Focus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- ...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)
- 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)
- Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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):
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAME&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1
- For example:
- 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)
- 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)
Bot has already been made and approved
Found it: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jayden54Bot
"This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion."
- User:Jayden54Bot bot created and approved in January 2007.
- More details: User:Jayden54Bot/AFDNotify
- Opt out coding: User:Jayden54Bot/ignore.js
- Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"[2]
- Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.[3]
- "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:
09:26, 29 September 2007:
|
Ikip (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Some of my editor friends who support deletion, got a charming invitation to see: Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron a humorous page created by User:Wheelchair Epidemic. I am disappointed that I was not invited to see this page. I dont have the heart to tell him that this project already exists, but it is inactive. Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Under deletion discussion, I think the template is funny as hell, and I added the Rescue template.
I suggest editors be careful how we respond to this Template deletion, as there is an ANI posting about this.
There are going to probably be a lot of actions which contradict peoples words in this template for deletion. Should be interesting/painful to watch. Ikip (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- TfD speedy closed, template either deleted or userfied. -- Banjeboi 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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?
- 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.
- 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[5] 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)
- 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)
- That's not a closely watched page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:35, 28 April 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)
- You mean: WP:BLP1E? Ikip (talk) 13:40, 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)
- Ack! Hoist by my own petard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 29 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)
- 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)
- Lovely. After it'd been discussed elsewhere and in place for several days, one post here and it gets reverted[5] without meaningful comment within 10 minutes of this post. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 28 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Archiving methods
Isn't it time automated archiving was set up for this page? The current method is that one editor archives what he doesn't like any more, and keeps here anything which gets his approval. Sections are simultaneously archived and kept here, other sections are archived less than a day after the last post in it... I can give examples if people would prefer those, but I think the general point is more important, that we either get a bot to do it (impersonal, more reliable), or continue to do it manually (more flexible) but with better care or some basic rules. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- It does appear that the archiving as of late has been irregular and contentious. I suggest we take advantage of one of the bots and set up automatic archiving. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually that would screw up prior threads that are still relevant but have been collapsed. And Fram, I've been trying to archive threads to minimize IMHO unneeded drama. I've gotten quite a few offwiki complaints about it and Wikiproject's aren't soapboxes for or against deletionism/inclusionism so I've been trying to focus purely on the work here. That the accusations and disruption has been from two admins is probably the most alarming part but if you're unwilling or unable to work with other editors here we can look to some alternatives. I've been moving and collpsing threads, appropriately, or so I thought but AMIB wanted to say something more in one and for some reason also brought back the one about the sock farm. I'll post a note to that one and see if we can't archive it as well. The other outstanding threads were generally stalled in place because of the TfD RfC which I was hoping we could move on from. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Ben. There are a couple of editors who regularly edit here who contribute absolutly nothing to the Article Rescue Squadron project (ironically this is how they approach most articles up for deletion too--they are only there to complain about everyone else's efforts, adding nothing of any value to the article itself).
- One in particular has tried everything in his power to derail this project, and harrassed several Article Squadron members.
- I wanted to have a ARS poll to topic ban this editor for ARS, and maybe we should still do this. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Off-wiki complaints are irrelevant, if they have a problem, they should tell so here. And if you want to minimize drama, then don't start throwing "drama" and other uncivil remarks out every time a discussion isn't to your liking, and instead of archiving threads where just prior your incorrect statements have been corrected, it would be better to either acknowledge your errors or just do some research before you make them. Furthermore, there is no reason why the RFC is archived and still on this talk page at the same time, or why the active discussion "Is it appropriate to put a rescue tag on a guideline page?" is removed here and archived twice on the same page, or why there is absolutely no order in the archives, neither in the individual pages (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 27) or between the pages, making it very, very hard to find an older discussion again. Of course, when the same discussion starts Archive 25 and Archive 26, then it becomes easier again. And Ikip, if you want to discuss an editor, please start a new thread instead of derailing this one. But I don't think that a project that wants to silence its critics will give a very good impression. Fram (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Generally items are archived as the discussion warrants. It's generally peaceful enough around here minus your and A Man In Black's input that things would be discussed, discussion would die down and we'd mve on. This project's work concerns a tighter time frame s many threads were about a XfD r discussin that was nly active for a short time. The concern of finding something in our archives is the first I think I've ever heard. All the archives link to each other and are generally in a chronological order. A few items were double posted because somene unarchived them and then that discussion was rearchived. In short if you have something to say perhaps saying it once will do the trick, if you are repeating yourself it may be that the issue is much less important to other editors than you. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why archive something if not to be able to find it again in the future? As for chronological order? Archive 24 has a discussion from 16-17 March 2009, 25 Feb - 21 March 2009, 1-6 March 2009, 23-25 March 2009, and 23-27 September 2008... Archive 27: 10-24 April, 29 January, 29 March-4 April, 16-23 April, 17-19 April, 22-23 April, and 13-20 February. The rest of your comments are mostly irrelevant or ironic. Fram (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Generally items are archived as the discussion warrants. It's generally peaceful enough around here minus your and A Man In Black's input that things would be discussed, discussion would die down and we'd mve on. This project's work concerns a tighter time frame s many threads were about a XfD r discussin that was nly active for a short time. The concern of finding something in our archives is the first I think I've ever heard. All the archives link to each other and are generally in a chronological order. A few items were double posted because somene unarchived them and then that discussion was rearchived. In short if you have something to say perhaps saying it once will do the trick, if you are repeating yourself it may be that the issue is much less important to other editors than you. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually that would screw up prior threads that are still relevant but have been collapsed. And Fram, I've been trying to archive threads to minimize IMHO unneeded drama. I've gotten quite a few offwiki complaints about it and Wikiproject's aren't soapboxes for or against deletionism/inclusionism so I've been trying to focus purely on the work here. That the accusations and disruption has been from two admins is probably the most alarming part but if you're unwilling or unable to work with other editors here we can look to some alternatives. I've been moving and collpsing threads, appropriately, or so I thought but AMIB wanted to say something more in one and for some reason also brought back the one about the sock farm. I'll post a note to that one and see if we can't archive it as well. The other outstanding threads were generally stalled in place because of the TfD RfC which I was hoping we could move on from. -- Banjeboi 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
So um. This fighting is super amusing and all, but the bot archiving? Anyone care? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, don't do it per discussion above. -- Banjeboi 10:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which part? It's easy to keep a discussion from being archived, just by tagging it with {{unresolved}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- An archiving bot sounded good but Im not sure after reading Banjebois comments. On the other issue, I would support a topic ban for anyone who goes about blocking ASR members for no good reason, regardless of any constructive criticism and friendly banter they have to offer the project. Unless of course they undertake to give a lot more thought before issuing any further blocks! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved a number of permanently kept discussions to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Background. Having too many of these makes this page too big and too cumbersome, but having such useful discussions and information gathered in one place instead of over thirty archives is obviously beneficial. This way, this page can be automatically archived, and all good info can be kept together anyway. This probably needs refining, but it's the way most projects work, and creates better archives which much less hassle. Fram (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anything that saves time and hassle cant be bad! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- In this case it was. These are issues that are still open and ongoing, those of us looking at long-range planning are still sorting the best way to handle many of these more complex issues. Those threads were collapsed so except for minimal space, the only concern was size and those were pretty small. All in all not an improvement and making things harder for keeping things organized. -- Banjeboi 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then bring back the ongoing ones. There were two sections with posts from March, and there were no posts from April 2009 at all. "Harder for keeping things organized"? At least in this way we could have decent archives. Fram (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- We've been archiving manually since the project began and this is the first I've heard that anyone couldn't find something, which is the point of archiving - that you can reference something when you need to. Almost all archiving is inherantly chronological. Threads are generally archived by stale date not start date. This haven't been concerns until recently and once a few of these more voluminous threads die down things should be quite reasonable again. Perhaps adding an archive indeax would make sense so it's easier to access the threads? -- Banjeboi 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- AS shown above, it is not chronological, neither by start date not by stale date, but more or less randomly. Why would you manually archive things in a haphazard way and then add an index so that people can find anything back in that mess, when you can have a bot doing the same things much better? Your care above was "keeping things organized", but things are not organized now, and no good reason is given why an archive bot is not acceptable. That I am the first to raise this issue is not really indicative of anything: these archives are only read a few times a month, so the less effort is put into them (to create them and to search them afterwards), the better. Fram (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- We've been archiving manually since the project began and this is the first I've heard that anyone couldn't find something, which is the point of archiving - that you can reference something when you need to. Almost all archiving is inherantly chronological. Threads are generally archived by stale date not start date. This haven't been concerns until recently and once a few of these more voluminous threads die down things should be quite reasonable again. Perhaps adding an archive indeax would make sense so it's easier to access the threads? -- Banjeboi 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then bring back the ongoing ones. There were two sections with posts from March, and there were no posts from April 2009 at all. "Harder for keeping things organized"? At least in this way we could have decent archives. Fram (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- In this case it was. These are issues that are still open and ongoing, those of us looking at long-range planning are still sorting the best way to handle many of these more complex issues. Those threads were collapsed so except for minimal space, the only concern was size and those were pretty small. All in all not an improvement and making things harder for keeping things organized. -- Banjeboi 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anything that saves time and hassle cant be bad! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have moved a number of permanently kept discussions to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Background. Having too many of these makes this page too big and too cumbersome, but having such useful discussions and information gathered in one place instead of over thirty archives is obviously beneficial. This way, this page can be automatically archived, and all good info can be kept together anyway. This probably needs refining, but it's the way most projects work, and creates better archives which much less hassle. Fram (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Full AfD on subpage
I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Deletion yesterday of a AfD, and I noticed that this project has the certain full deletion discussions on that page. I was thinking that we may want to create a subpage with all of the current full AfDs with rescue tags on them. I haven't though through the pros and cons...thoughts? Ikip (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Too many, and if you split them into themes you'll get deletion sorting. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's what WP:DELSORT is for. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am indifferent either way, but I was a little unclear, I meant only all rescue pages. If you notice, Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Deletion only has two deletion discussions on it. We would only have those with the rescue tag. Ikip (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, that's what WP:DELSORT is for. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Large numbers of country relationships articles nominated for deletion in a short period of time
I see some of the articles have Rescue tags, and have been worked on, and plenty are there to have them saved. However is it possible to save all of them in time?
Some editors have nominated a vast number of these types of articles within a short time period.
In one of these articles, Algeria and Cyprus relations the president of one nation mentioned to the other his people wanted to reunite the countries. Now obviously, that makes it notable. I'm wondering how many other articles out there might be deleted, because of the fact that it is far easier to simply nominate something for destruction, instead of searching for some facts. Most of these articles I have seen thus far, are obviously worthy of keeping.
My case is this:
- Any relationship between two countries is notable.
- If you speak the language of either nation, you can easily search their newspapers, it highly unlikely that not a single notable event happened between them throughout their history.
So I'm asking for any who speak another language, to please look over this rather large collection of articles nominated, and briefly search for newspaper articles about them. It shouldn't take long to do. Dream Focus 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You need to talk to User:Marcusmax one of the more active new ARS members. He and I have worked on several of these articles.
- There is: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations now. In which editors attempt to rewrite these articles.
- This is the reason why WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE need to be enforced. 99.9% of the time these editors who put up articles for deletion make no effort to improve the article first. I could prove this easily with little research on my random day of deletions page, here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, but I know it would persuade no one, as no amount of research has. Ikip (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you 100%, I am possibly starting to see these Afds violate WP:POINT, as some of the reasons for the afds are just trying to get the articles deleted without even checking for content. Me along with Ikip and a few others have rescued a fair amount of these articles, and I know for a fact that about 75% of these have verifiable material however many look right past it and before you know it a salvageable article is lost. Not only are these afds sometimes uncalled for but they are also harming the afd system. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- it is not WP:POINT and you're not assuming good faith here. I don't nominate most X-Y bilateral relation articles that I come across (although there are probably 100s if not over 1000 in existence) but I would say over 70% I've nominated have been deleted. those that have been saved have proven notable relations from sources. having said that I've also created about 6 new bilateral articles and plan to create more when I have the time. I strongly disagree that "Any relationship between two countries is notable." using some guidelines I've been using Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never once mentioned you in particluar were arguing a point there are plenty of users who might be arguing a point. I am one of the most civil wikipedian's around and in no way am I blaming you nor any one person as arguing a point. It should be noted that I have taken, I believe 4 days off of wikipedia so I can remain a civil person as obviously some of these afds are turning me into somweone I don't want to be. So no hard feelings, Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. no hard feelings, I certainly think you are doing a good effort in AfD providing valid reasons for keep. Some (and it's a minority) editors are not backing their claims for keep with reliable sources. My goal is that we have a good concise set of X-Y country articles, but that does not mean all combinations. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never once mentioned you in particluar were arguing a point there are plenty of users who might be arguing a point. I am one of the most civil wikipedian's around and in no way am I blaming you nor any one person as arguing a point. It should be noted that I have taken, I believe 4 days off of wikipedia so I can remain a civil person as obviously some of these afds are turning me into somweone I don't want to be. So no hard feelings, Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 14:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- it is not WP:POINT and you're not assuming good faith here. I don't nominate most X-Y bilateral relation articles that I come across (although there are probably 100s if not over 1000 in existence) but I would say over 70% I've nominated have been deleted. those that have been saved have proven notable relations from sources. having said that I've also created about 6 new bilateral articles and plan to create more when I have the time. I strongly disagree that "Any relationship between two countries is notable." using some guidelines I've been using Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. LibStar (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with both of you 100%, I am possibly starting to see these Afds violate WP:POINT, as some of the reasons for the afds are just trying to get the articles deleted without even checking for content. Me along with Ikip and a few others have rescued a fair amount of these articles, and I know for a fact that about 75% of these have verifiable material however many look right past it and before you know it a salvageable article is lost. Not only are these afds sometimes uncalled for but they are also harming the afd system. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree with this rescue of the many country relations articles being proposed for deletion, and I also don't think you said any type of personal attack to anyone Marcusmax (some editors just happen to take things too personal). I'd be available to help out with any Spanish-language relations that might need verification; recently, I was able to find Spanish-language information that helped save the Peru-Bulgaria relations article that was about to die due to the lack of search that the people proposing and supporting the delete did.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- User:MarshalN20, I am going to post the relevant portion of this message at:
- Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we please begin by killing three memes? First: no, not all bilateral relations are notable; that is well established by dozens of discussions already. Second: no, saying "sources might be out there in Swahili in a Mombasa warehouse or in Thai somewhere in Bangkok" doesn't help at all, and ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on "keep" voters to supply evidence of notability. Third: no, there is no one arguing for deletion of "all" such articles, just the ones lacking notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There's a flip side to those three statements Biruitorul. On the central discussion its been said that if consensus was there at least one would "support deleting all bilateral relations articles". As you say each time an AfD ends in deletion it establishes a precedent that makes further deletion easier to achieve. Yes the burden of proof is on those who want to keep these artilces and it takes a long time to search for sources especially when you know they're going to under close scruntiny. Counter wise its takes very little time to nominate large numbers of articles for deletion. This is why we need some kind of new guideline to help protect these entries, otherwise many will inevitably lost as its too much work to save them considering the rate they're being nominated at. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- If potentially notable articles are being lost - a very big if indeed - recreating them at a later date is hardly an insurmountable challenge. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's much easier and considerate to our volunteer editors to have the foundation there to begin with rather than to have to keep starting over. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That statement assumes there's something worth expanding, which in the great majority of the cases that went through AfD, is not true. By that logic, nothing would ever get deleted, on the off-chance it might get improved "someday". - Biruitorul Talk 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Only libelous and copy vio materials should be deleted. Anything that can be verified through reliable sources, even if only enough for stub form are sufficient for a paperless encyclopedia, just as Britannica has the Micropedia and Macropedia volumes. So long as the information is factual and relevant to someone, it is worth keeping. A legitimate research question for people looking in a reference guide is "I wonder if X country has any relations with y country" and even if the article essentially only shows that the relationship is minor, it is still providing a valid service for our readership. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That statement assumes there's something worth expanding, which in the great majority of the cases that went through AfD, is not true. By that logic, nothing would ever get deleted, on the off-chance it might get improved "someday". - Biruitorul Talk 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's much easier and considerate to our volunteer editors to have the foundation there to begin with rather than to have to keep starting over. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- To the extent that's notable, can't it be covered in, say, "Diplomatic missions of..." articles? In other words, if there's nothing other than to say "X has relations with Y", surely we don't need separate articles for all the possible permutations. - Biruitorul Talk 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even in that case, i.e. where it can be covered elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect. There is a convenience factor for our readers to have as many probably redirects as possible. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Going back to the "paperless" argument, another factor is that it is undesirable to have articles that no NPOV editor is watching in the long term. Unlike Britannica's Micropedia we generally don't lock a specific version of an article, so we need to be sure knowledgeable readers will read each article often enough to detect the introduction of doubtful or wrong material. IMO this isn't quite the same as notability. For example if Bulgaria has really maintained an Embassy in Luanda since 1976, I can accept there is/was something notable (at least from Bulgaria's point of view) about Angola–Bulgaria relations. But I find it hard to believe that the article will be sufficiently monitored in the decades to come. If anyone PRODed it in 2011, who would notice? - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be understanding the "paperless" argument, or at least not in your final words. This is the Internet, and just as you are afraid that anybody could show up and edit an international relations article incorrectly, you can be sure that there will also eventually be someone who will fix the article either towards a better direction or simply put it back to the way it was. Things such as these could not happen in a long paper/book encyclopedia; if errors were found, it would take the next edition to fix them. It only takes the click of a button to fix them in the Internet.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- MarshalN20, I understand more tedious detail about collaborative version/verification issues than you would ever want to discuss. It's been an issue for intermittently connected data synchronization scenarios (e.g. in CRM and ERP) for well over a decade, and the solution is usually some sort of data quality team to review changes. In Wikipedia, that layer is provided informally by knowledgeable readers being able to read/correct articles, and slightly more formally by editors' watchlists. My point is that when an article is so obscure that neither of these models will correct errors reasonably quickly—much quicker than "eventually"—it can't be relied on and probably shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, even though it is in fact notable. - Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Even in that case, i.e. where it can be covered elsewhere, then we would merge and redirect. There is a convenience factor for our readers to have as many probably redirects as possible. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good points, Pointillist; let me also note that many of these articles fall afoul of WP:BTW, in that there's no place from which to link to them. Take, for instance, Bulgaria–Peru relations. Is there any article that could possibly link to this one? Of course not - it's destined to sit there in isolation, at least until a future AfD takes care of it. - Biruitorul Talk 23:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- See below, it is obvious that no reference is adequate enough for you Biruitorul. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- If potentially notable articles are being lost - a very big if indeed - recreating them at a later date is hardly an insurmountable challenge. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Very questionable AfDs
Currently there are 77 country relationship articles up for deletion, posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, put up for deletion by a handful of editors. There is absolutly no effort at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE in any of these articles.
User:LibStar admits above that "only 70%" of his AfDs are being deleted.
Biruitorul, despite disingeously saying
- "If someone does find significant coverage for one or more of these pairings, I'll be glad to strike them out as that happens."[6]
...No matter how many references are provided Biruitorul never reconsiders his deletion. User:WilyD provided 36 references for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Uzbekistan relations and 15 references in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Saudi Arabia relations and Biruitorul dismissed them. He also calls an editor "disruptive",[7] another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "[8]
In addition, there is a JamesBurns type of sock involved in many of these article deletions. (I am contacting the editor who exposed JamesBurns. Maybe he can expose others)
A couple of issues:
- Where can I report this to get results? WP:AFD will give me the regular response. WP:ANI maybe the same.
- Are WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE just words? 99.9% of AFD nominators never follows this. How can WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE be enforced?
- When does an editor cross the line between constructive editing and senseless deletion of other editors contriubtions?
I am really not interested in our two critical admins comments, but I will inevitably get them. Ikip (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please comment of content, not on contributors. You've shown no independent, significant coverage at that AfD (where I generously offered to strike entries for which you found sources); not assuming good faith on my part will not bolster your argument one bit. - Biruitorul Talk 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Calling other editors "disruptive"[9] and another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "[10] is commenting on the content?Ikip (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The place to report it is in the AFD. The way to enforce WP:BEFORE is to do the work yourself, and WP:PRESERVE is already enforced by no consensus favoring keep. There is no "senseless deletion of other editors' contributions" line because it can't happen without forming a firm consensus to delete. If you want to defend something, the burden is on you to defend it with evidence.
- Ultimately, this sort of article is why this project needs to exist, and rescuing them by improving the articles is laudable work. Poorly conceived, poorly executed, but potential notability. Remember, the job is to fix these articles so that they're useful to readers, not to make policy to ensure they aren't deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Calling other editors "disruptive"[9] and another's edits "annoying and irrelevant "[10] is commenting on the content?Ikip (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone is welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. Ikip (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Old bot idea
I found this at AfD: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_42#Bot_Idea
- "I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot".
I don't know what happened to this idea ... Ikip (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame nominee?
I'm not a member of the squadron, per se, but maybe Ryan Patrick Halligan is worthy of inclusion? After all, the !votes at AfD were running 5-2 in favor of deletion or merge until it was expanded. The AfD was closed as Keep here, I'm happy to say. JGHowes talk 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame is for editors who save articles, not the articles themselves. If you feel like you did a lot of work on the article, I would happily add you to the page. Ikip (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, sure, I did the work – see its history since you tagged it {{rescue}} on May 1. JGHowes talk 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, just making sure you knew how it worked, you deserve the award, Congratulations. Ikip (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, sure, I did the work – see its history since you tagged it {{rescue}} on May 1. JGHowes talk 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Red cunt hair
Just a heads-up; the previously rescued Red cunt hair has now been deleted; I've taken it to DRV here because I don't see a consensus in the AfD - but it's not looking too good. Chzz ► 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Normally I'd pitch this as canvassing (hey guys, come back me up at DRV), but a comment made there bears discussion. "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly." Where did this attitude come from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea where that came from. ARS is chartered to make improvements on articles that are salvageable. We're no more chartered to sit as judges on any article than any other editors are. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Likewise for Hollie Steel
Why is there a Rescue tag on an article that's now at DRV? Better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission? Just curious. Radiopathy •talk• 02:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)