Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 35
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Greece and South American countries
ResolvedMoved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject International_relations/Bilateral relations_task force#Moved from WT:Article Rescue Squadron as per suggestion by Banjeboi. Ikip (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! -- Banjeboi 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Levi Johnston a good candidate for the tag?
ResolvedI usually see the tag on stuff that is borderline notable, and that's not really the case here. The question is whether he's notable outside of the whole Sarah Palin media thing. If it is appropriate, I could use some help distinguishing him as a notable person himself. You can throw a rock at google news and hit a thousand articles about Sarah, but sifting through them and finding ones about Johnston is more difficult. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- In light of the above criticisms, I took the unusual step of removing the rescue tag. As you and I agree, there's no shortage of news coverage for him in the context of Palin. What, then, is really the goal of the rescue squadron in this case? The article is well-sourced and articulate. I just don't see our participation as adding to the discussion. Any editor can feel free to revert my tag removal, and I won't dispute it, but I just see this as so unambiguously outside the ARS scope that the tag doesn't belong. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. I asked because it didn't look like other articles I've seen so tagged. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I added the tag and would have left it. Once the tag is on there's not a great reason to remove it. ARS members are better for seeing more articles that have nuanced AfD reasons and BLP1E is a good example. In any case there does seem to be consensus to keep it at this point so I'd be shocked if it wasn't. -- Banjeboi 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The ARS is not just about adding sources. Articles of this sort tend to attract political partisans to the discussion but such editors are less likely to be familiar with the policy issues which arise at AFD. ARS participation is useful in such cases to provide an informed perspective which is not so political. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I read the ongoing DRV, and I don't think he is. Too remote, and major BLP issues. Ikip (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. I asked because it didn't look like other articles I've seen so tagged. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what more we can do for the article, because it is obviously a verifiable subject of widespread interest. Anyway, I fixed some of the punctuation and spacing at least. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:08, 12 May 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)
Since there are demonstrably problems with the current archiving, and solutions for all remarks which lead to opposition against automated (bot) archiving, I have attempted to set up Miszabot to archive this page automatically (discussions without new posts in the last 7 days). All discussions at the top of the talk page will not be automatically archived, as I have added a hidden timestamp in the far future. Once you think these discussions may be archived, you can simply remove the hidden comment. Likewise, new discussions you want to have around for a bit longer can be kept here in the same way. This is the first time I have set up the archivebot, so if there are errors in how I did it, just let me know and I'll try to fix it. The auto-archives should start with #31. If people prefer a longer archiving time, no problem, but since 7 days is the time of AfD's and Prod's as well, it seemed logical. Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry but your fix creates its own problems. The only "problems" seemed to be early archiving of some threads which you seem to agree can now be aged seven days before archiving. I've added a search option to the archive box to help the stated issue of not being able to find items. Perhaps this will address the assumptions of other editors motives and help us all move forward? -- Banjeboi 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- How cooperative to state that my fix creates its own problems, without then listing even one of them, while at the same time misrepresenting the current problems (it's not only "early archiving of some threads", but also "late archiving" of others, which gives us archives without any order, which then has to be fixed through a search box). Anyway, could you, perhaps, please, state what the problems with the archive bot are, so that people can discuss them and see whether they are truly a problem and/or can be fixed? Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we're missing each other's thoughts here. You posited that there was a problem and others agreed that waiting a week to archive stale threads seemed a reasonable solution. I've agreed to that compromise. You stated that you feel you couldn't find something? in the archives and we've added a search box to also adddress that. Now you seem concerned that we aren't archiving certain threads fast enough. Sorry, I don't see the problem with that. Not all threads are created equal and it would be foolish not to point out the obvious that your main and possibly only contributions here have been to disparage this project. Hanging around just to help us see how seemingly bad we are seems like a terrible idea and one whose only net result is to cause more disruption. The old system worked fine until yourself and AMIB came along, IMHO, filling up thread after thread with rather pointy and uncivil comments. Valid points - that is, anything constructive - simply got lost in unhelpful "drama". This is not a soapbox or the wild west frontier where we wage battles as Wikipedia is not a battleground. All this non-stop prickliness has gotten in the way of actually addressing some solutions to issues that others have been working on while simultaneously making this talkpage rather toxic and unwelcoming. There's a common saying that can apply to the archiving concern, if it ain't broke don't fix it. You've pointed out three concerns and others have agreed and I've fixed two of them. The third, essentially archiving all threads exactly seven days stale doesn't work here as many of these items are on hold. I see no reason to further change what had been working up until recently and your other stated concerns have been addressed so I'm left feeling you wish to simply engage as you have done on seemingly every other thread and that holds little interest I'm afraid. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- "I've agreed to that compromise"? I must have missed that agreement then, last I noticed was that you denied any problems, and only added a search box, which is helpful but insufficient. There are disputes over when to archive things: you state that the bot would archive some things too early, I state that you archive some things too soon and some too late, but that the bot at least can be made not to archive any section pretty easily, with future timestamps. This system works for every other project talk page I know of, from the contentious ones like WP:ANI to the more mundane ones. I can't help but feel that it is you who wants to object, simply because I made the proposal, and even though other people like Jclemens and FeydHuxtable have no problems with this. But I'm glad you've brought the old "drama" up again, that's really helpful. This page now is 250Kb long, so perhaps we do have some archiving problem after all...Fram (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have poked at a sore subject. I would like to archive some of the itms that seemed to have run their course but a rough consensus is that we should wait a week to let things go stale. Up until recently this really hasn't been an issue. I'm hoping it won't be again as the recent events have delayed actions, and thus archiving other items. I pretty much would have the same response to the general idea of auto-archiving regardless of who presented it. Personally I see the volume n this page as a symptom of larger issues beyond ARS but I'm choosing to work on teh areas that I am best able. -- Banjeboi 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- How cooperative to state that my fix creates its own problems, without then listing even one of them, while at the same time misrepresenting the current problems (it's not only "early archiving of some threads", but also "late archiving" of others, which gives us archives without any order, which then has to be fixed through a search box). Anyway, could you, perhaps, please, state what the problems with the archive bot are, so that people can discuss them and see whether they are truly a problem and/or can be fixed? Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedHi 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)
Nuvola AfD
ResolvedSources for whomever wants to deal with the Nuvola AfD:
- Google Books: nuvola icon
- Debian: Nuvola packages
- Ubuntu: Nuvola packages
- Gentoo: Nuvola packages
- Mandriva: kde-icons-nuvola
- Mandriva: nagios-theme-nuvola
- FreeBSD Ports: kde-icons-nuvola
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those are just places to download various versions of the Nuvola package. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will help you out. I will try to see what I can do. template used: {{findsources3|Nuvola icon}}
- For Nuvola icon: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- For Nuvola: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- I messaged you some common tools which may help also.
- Ikip (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, actually those are not download links at all, they link to package information for various Linux distributions and the FreeBSD ports tree. Those are valid refs to establish WP:N in showing that this icon set is included in multiple open source operating systems. These are pretty standard refs for Open Source Software articles when establishing notability for a particular software package. The first link to Google Books pulls up multiple books with information on the Nuvola icon set. I've got my hands full right now so I really don't have time to work on the article or play a game of keep vs delete in that AfD. Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Can we move this to that AfD? -- Banjeboi 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think this person is asking for help, let everyone at ARS see it. I have a difficult time with this article. Hard to find sources. Ikip (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- If anywhere, it'd belong on the article talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've just got my hands full... There should be more than enough in the 4+ books Google Books turned up to satisfy WP:RS (multiple published works) and the Linux package information (not download links) should deal with any remaining WP:N. Again, common stuff used for articles about Open Source Software, just never thought I'd see one of the widely used icon libraries go up for AfD ;) Tothwolf (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- If anywhere, it'd belong on the article talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think this person is asking for help, let everyone at ARS see it. I have a difficult time with this article. Hard to find sources. Ikip (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article talk page would get little or no response. Why suggest this A Man In Black?
- I would suggest adding these references to the article itself, and to the AFD. then put a notification that to the closing nominator that the article has gone through signifigant improvements. Ikip (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)