Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Read this on Slashdot, relevant to the project

The comments by Slashdotters might be more interesting than the article: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/0328239 Ichormosquito 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notability as we now define it will soon be pointless, when you will be able to dredge up anything everybody and his dog has ever said about anybody on the net. I think we must go from a quantitative (a.k.a the Hated Google Test) to a qualitative one, e.g. "how good an article could it possibly be, given we've got all the sources we could possibly have"?--victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admissions to the ICU

Survivors can now be admitted to the ICU: Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#Articles having survived Afd admitted by the Article Rescue Squadron

I think we need to discuss the practical details on how this should be done. To consider: Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#To Admit an Article to the ICU and Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit#To Discharge an Article from the ICU. --victor falk 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If one needs help

I am a member of this "squadron", but unfortunately I have very little time to browse regularly through AfD lists. I like to do 1-2 things at a time, not 100, so... If you need help, and see this, please leave me a note here. I can not promiss help within minutes, neither a wisard's stick, but I can be at your side and honestly help with all I can. :Dc76\^talk 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples

I feel that this should be the best examples of ARS work. Articles such as Bawls where there still is serious issues remaining should perhaps not be included. At least not until/unless those concerns are dealt with. Taemyr (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Although it would be useful to show how articles were saved and now they are GA or FA status, etc. this project is still quite new and that list remains one of the few records and possible the only record of our collective work. The implications for its use have ye to be realized. I do agree that it would be helpful to designate some as notable examples but unsure the best way to do that. Benjiboi 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If Bawls is to be offered as an example it would be helpful to get a summary of what the rescuers did with it. Also an outline what the main issues were in the various AfDs, and if the repair work was able to deal with them. Finally, what was the clue (to the article rescuers) that this article in particular deserved their attention. I suppose it is too much work to do this for every item in the current list. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree that's a lot more work than I'm interested in at the moment; also I might not have made clear but I think the project needs a running list (a sortable table might be nice) of all the articles we saved as well as some examples of ones pre-project. Frankly I would like to formally issue ARS Barnstars but we have no complete list or actual means of creating one as out tag is temporary. Benjiboi 17:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems, of course, is that factual error in articles, lack of proper sourcing, etc., is *not* theoretically grounds for AfD. What might be relevant is an *impossibility* of reliable sourcing, or a lack of evidence for notability. To rescue an article, then, it should be sufficient to show evidence for notability plus at least the possibility of reliable sourcing. (Articles on notable topics really should not be deleted, period, but they may be stubbed if no reliable sources justify more than that). So if it is Article Rescue that we focus on, this is quite a bit of a lesser task than truly cleaning up articles. But, in practice, of course, AfDs *do* consider article quality, a quality article is much more likely to survive AfD. What disturbs me, though, is that we can put effort into improving an article under the AfD gun, and it gets deleted. So I'd personally focus on simply doing and reporting the research necessary to establish notability and at least one reliable source, if possible. I do not see the Rescue Squadron as inclusionist except as in opposition to a certain improper kind of deletionism.--Abd (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm. I though the purpose of ARS was to edit articles, rather than casting keep votes. Taemyr (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the Article Rescue Squadron is a net benefit overall but one cannot immediately get that impression from scanning down the list at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Examples. Purely to help save the idea from further criticism, it might be useful (though I'm not yet a volunteer for that) to offer a true success story, where the After is so much improved from the Before that even deletionists might feel that some good was done. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] might be one such example, I found it via ARS, and it looked like a straight-up press release. I removed peacock, I added some references and sources, as did Foznez, and saved it from AfD. With [2], all I had to do was clean up some of the non-relevant silly references. Ronabop (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

speaking as an individual, I doubt that anything I have done here has turned anything into a GA, and that is not my mission. Rather, I want to improve articles just enough to save them from deletion s that others can work on them further.I limit my goal this way because there are so many threatened articles--and so many unacceptable articles generally--that it's all i can do to do the minimum rescue on a small percentage of them. Of articles at AfD, many are hopeless--the topics will never be encyclopedic or the articles are in other ways not worth saving. But there are dozens deleted every day that could have been saved, if anyone had been willing to work on it. But there are so few of us, and it is so much easier to delete than to save. I can write a deletion rationale in about 60 seconds; it take perhaps 60 minutes for me to improve even minimally an article of the sort I work on when it appears there. (And many of the most frequently threatened ones, involving popular culture where so many of the references are non-obvious, can take maybe ten times that to do adequately, even in a very good physical library.) There would have to be 50 times as many people actually working on this as there are people nominating for deletion to provide a balance--that's about 50 times more than at present. So I rescue one or two a week; if I did nothing much else, I could perhaps do one or two a day. Ed, this is ARS, not GA. Emphasis on rescue--just the immediate job of keeping them alive till we get can them suitable for more definitive editing. DGG

To clarify, we are not about casting keep votes. ARS is specifically addressing the AfD process, other projects and tags address other clean-up situations. There is a big difference about how the AfD process does work and how various people think it should work, in short, ARS members have to become AfD specialists and quickly determine what needs to address on an article and deal with them as efficiently as possible. Our wok might address other issues but might be as simple as recruiting an expert on the subject from an appropriate project. I do totally agree that a cynic's gallery certainly could be of use and see that as easily implementable, such a section would help demonstrate what is possible and show examples of unquestionably taking something easily seen as AfD-able and what is possible. Personally, I think Slut night, Fingerboard (skateboard), Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) and Fruit (slang) would be good additions. Benjiboi 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can buy that. Although in the case of Bawls the fact that the article reads like an advert was mentioned during the AfD process. This is not my point however. My point is that by putting up a list of selected examples you give the impression that the current articles are articles that ARS have reason to be proud of. I am not suggesting that the threshold of inclusion should be GA or FA, but perhaps you should avoid putting forth articles that are blatantly transgression of editing policies or guidelines. Taemyr (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see more of what you mean. To me, in addition to having an all-star gallery of sorts, I think adding a statement as part of the intro that explains that (for those who didn't get the memo) that these articles were saved but certainly could still be improved as all articles on wikipedia are constantly being edited (and hopefully improved). Benjiboi 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Taemyr. ARS is for wild-eyed inclusionists only. You seem to be of the moderate kind. Zenwhat (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, I'm puzzled by what you hope to accomplish by coming to a project you apparently don't approve of and engaging in baiting-like edits. Please consider that your efforts might be better put to use elsewhere and your disparaging characterizations of the many members of this project are generally not appreciated. Benjiboi 22:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if ARS as it stands is dominated by wild-eyed inclusionists then that is something we will have to do something about. Because the stated purpose of ARS is one that is clearly useful for building a good encyclopedia. Taemyr (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics

Resolved

Why isn't this category automatically sorted alphabetically? It seems to have something to do with the way {{rescue}} works, but I tried removing a pipe character from where Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics appears in the template and it didn't have any apparent effect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some experiments, by substituting 'rescue' in a dummy article and starting to remove characters from the expansion. It did not lead to any enlightenment. Just removing the 'ambox' from the template made no difference. Adding {{DEFAULTSORT:A}} to an article should force it to sort under 'A' in any normal category, but it doesn't change its position in the 'rescue' listing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the template source, and see:

[[Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics| ]]

Could it be that the { pipe char followed by a blank } in that cause all articles to be categorized with a blank or a null as the optionally-specifiable sort key? As I read Help:Category, that might be the case. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the {{rescue}} template to remove the pipe character and the blank. The sort order looks OK to me now; see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you for sorting it out! Benji boi 08:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

absurd premise

This page makes the assertion that "it is easier to delete an article than to create one". Is there any documentation to this fact? The deletion of an article that doesn't meet speedy criteria requires a consensus of editors, which in practice means a nearly unanimous vote. Creating an article simply requires typing something and pressing the "Save page" button. This prejudicial, point-of-view statement is not based in fact, and colors the balance of the page. When can it be removed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See deletionism, and compare that to creating a decent article that won't get deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Easier to delete mostly just means that the act of deleting -- basically, pushing a button -- is easier than the act of creating an article, which involves writing, researching, etc. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating an article also involves only pushing a button. Do you really believe all articles on Wikipedia are researched, etc. ? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Look: the "effort" being talked about isn't the effort to conduct a meta-style talk page discussion. It's the effort involved in actually composing and typing up an article. Even one sentence takes effort to compose -- way more effort than pushing a button. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen: the effort required to delete an article is more than just pressing a button. Wikipedia mandates that work for the deletion of articles, while no such work is mandated (in any real enforced way, anyhow) for the creation of articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles are frequently deleted without a unanimous vote. See for example here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; in practice, it usually means a nearly unanimous vote. Starting with this fallacy to build the argument that we should work to "rescue" articles results in an untenable position. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the aim is to rescue articles not in an untenable position, actually. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I meant that the argument was untenable, not the articles were. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

I know that this initiative relates primarily to articles at AFD, but does its scope cover articles that have been PRODed too? Quite frankly, there seems to be a shameful amount of decent stubs on notable topics that are deleted via PROD every day. I try to review them and rescue any that look as if they should be discussed formally before deletion, but some of those that I find still PRODed make me feel as is nobody else can be looking through. If rescuing PRODs is not covered here, is it covered elsewhere? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PROD is often worse than AfD - it definitely needs to fall under the scope of this project. I look through it as often as I can, and have saved dozens of articles.Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that if an article is the PROD of an article can be challenged retroactively. If you find that an article of interest has been deleted through PROD, take it to DRV. It will be restored and sent to AfD. Dsmdgold (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the narrow scope of this project, ie. purely making sure the articles survive AfD, means that prodded articles is outside of scope. If you feel that an article can be improved to fix the concerns raised by a prod then simply remove the prod tag. Add rescue template if/when the article is put up for AfD. As Dsmdgold points out prod can be challenged retroactivly. WP:WICU has a wider scope than ARS. Taemyr (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to invite you guys to Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This project is to rescue articles on encyclopedic topics that may not necessarily pass AfD in their current state. A large number of PROD articles fall into this category. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of defining a specific scope to the project, it tends to attract criticism from the likes of Zenwhat et al that would try to attack the exact definition of our boundaries. I'd prefer to think of ARS as a general goal of saving perfectly encyclopedic articles from deletion, and to say that we ally ourselves with WPPDP and ICU. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roninbk. Do you know how active the participation in WPPDP is, as there seems to be very few recent entries on its talk page? Thanks agsin Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WPPDP is a rather gnomish undertaking, so there really isn't a lot of discussion over there. If there's any ambiguity over what happens there, it usually ends up at AfD anyways for the entire community to discuss. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Give an article a chance! The Limit of The Semantic Web.

Please Help Me!

IMO this should be improved, not deleted; it looks like a useful addition, and I’d like to read it again tomorrow. If the objection is “Original Research” wouldn’t it be better to ask for references, and tag it thus?

Deleting a well-written, well-sourced article on the basis of notability reduces the total information of wikipedia.--Identityandconsulting (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion proposal: Do we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work?

The biggest problem with focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve Wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve Wikipedia by deleting content! If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on Wikipedia, we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now.

There are other alternatives to deletion that are more constructive, such as merging, adding onto stub artiles, finding sources, fixing wording, line-item deletion, or simple editing.

Someone comes along--often someone with no knowledge of the subject--and presumes that the article can never be expanded and will never have verifiable sources, and so he PRODs it.
The original editor removes the PROD tag and maybe makes a substantial edit, if he has time--but remember, the whole reason he only wrote a sentence or two in the first place is because he doesn't have more than a few minutes at a time to work on Wikipedia.
The individual who added the PROD tag then lists it on AfD, for the same reason he PRODded it.
Other editors recommend its deletion, on the grounds that it does not list any sources, makes no claims to notability, or is simply "too short to be worth keeping"

So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the {{expand}} tag. --Identityandconsulting (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

though the above principles are certainly reasonable, the consensus --with which I agree-- was to delete the article as an unsupported essay. DGG (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PRODded articles and {{Rescue}}

I've noticed a couple articles that were PRODded, and had a {{Rescue}} tag attached. I'd say that is probably a bad idea, because the template will attempt to link to a AfD page that does not exist.

Proper procedure to object to a PROD is to simply delete the PROD template, and giving a reason in the edit summary. Invariably, it will lead to the article being listed at AfD, and you can toss in the life preserver template then. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about invariably. Leave a message on the talk page of the person placing the tag and explain why you removed the tag. If the removal of the tag is for a good reason, and/or is accompanied with edits fixing the concerned raised an editor should be willing to look with an open mind. Personally I place the prod template when I feel that deletion should be uncontroversial, when I am contested it usually mean that my reading of the situation is wrong and so I am somewhat reluctant about putting the article up for deletion. But again, if the article doesn't end in afd then it really falls outside the scope of this project. Taemyr (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

fin::I also don;t know about invariably--AfD'ing this automatically would not always be wise. Anyone can place a prod, and, upon argument, can think better about it. DGG (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, "invariably" admittedly may be a bit of a exaggeration. Clearly, if nothing happens after the PROD is removed, consider it a job well done and move along. In my experience however, the PRODder is often attempting to delete the article by seeking a form of unanimous consent, and once they run into an objection which causes the PROD to fail, they often nominate at AfD with "Contested PROD." This doesn't change my assertion that the Rescue tag is specifically for articles that are within an AfD debate, other tags like {{expand}} are more appropriate for articles not undergoing AfD -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think adding {{rescue}} to PRODs is the best idea; just remove it (WP:BOLD and all...). That said, if the article is sent to AfD (watchlist when removing prods!) you should bring in the ARS. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So use the ICU instead. 68.101.123.219 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Troll template

I'm removing the {{TrollWarning}} template from this talk page. I'm pretty sure we can all identify trollish behavior without this template, and I fear attracting more attention via WP:BEANS -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to start presenting editors with rescue barnstars as discussed above

I propse that those editors who rescued Weapons of Resident Evil 4 be the first to receive barnstars for their hard work in that effort. As I participated in that work, I don't think it would be right for me to be the one to award these members, so I'll provide the list for my fellow members here and hope that we can get the ball rolling on awarding rescue barnstars. The members of the Article Rescue Squadron who helped save Weapons of Resident Evil 4 are User:DGG and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. A number of other editors contributed to improving the article during that discussion as well, but are not listed as members of the ARS. If I mistakenly left anybody out, I apologize. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

it has not yet been saved--a save is a consensus keep, not a noconsensus with a merge tag still active. suggest deferring victory celebrations till victories are accomplished. DGG (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was rated A class and the merge discussion seems to be leaning toward keep: [3], [4], etc. I do appreciate the reply. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag fix

I'm noting that on Rescue-tagged articles that have been nominated multiple times, the deletion discussion link defaults to the first nomination discussion, and there doesn't seem to be an option to direct it to another page. Can someone more template savvy than I look into this? -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Use {{rescue|page=Example (2nd nomination)}}. Taemyr (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-rescure template

Would it it be inappropriate to design an anti-rescue template (without links), to be placed below the rescue template, which states that (in at least one editor's opinion), there's nothing to rescue. As an example, consider vector (physical). It's either:

A content fork, unsuitable for rescue, or
A misnomer; the subject of the article has not been clearly defined yet.

Nothing except the lead, a bibliography, an section outline, and a few single lines, has yet been written. It's even arguably speedy deletable as {{db-context}}. Furthermore no one except the creator has edited the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's a good idea, but we should feel able to discuss the application of rescue templates; to my mind (as a mathematician and a physicist) that article really doesn't want rescuing. More to the point, the reasons for it going to AFD aren't rescuable, so recue isn't appropriate anyway. I'm frankly tempted to remove it. SamBC(talk) 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed it because the reasons given for deletion on the AFD aren't rescuable. Interestingly, the reasons you give here are (it being unfinished), but the forking and so on simply aren't compatible with rescuing. SamBC(talk) 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be redundant as the ugly AfD template is already in effect an anti-rescue template. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem quite pointy and likely unneeded. If there really isn't anything worth rescuing then the AfD will wipe it out in days despite a rescue tag. Benji boi 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson

Hi, could you guys help out Darren M Jackson? The author has very limited experience in Wikipedia, but there seem to be some sources. I myself tried to get this article speedied, but am now concerned that Wikipedia might lose a valuable article. Thanks, Heavy Seltzer (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

{{rescue}} tag added. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Must sleep now.. Fosnez (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to help copyedit or rewrite, but to be honest I'm finding it hard to find anything that looks like a reliable source. I'll keep looking though, (and it may well be that I just haven't worked out the right approach - that's happened before) but without something notable I'm not sure that a rewrite would be enough for a rescue. - Bilby (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescue Contest II

Who wants to revive the Wikipedia:Article rescue contest? I'd love to see this done on a semi-regular basis. I'll help organize. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a great idea! Maybe we co cosponsor along with some of the other related projects like intensive care and clean-up task force. Benji boi 09:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as nobody starts AfDing articles he can fix so that he'll get lots of opportunities... --Kiz o r 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I read of the original contest, that was an automatic disqualification. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created a mockup page at User:Roninbk/Article rescue contest II, for us to coordinate on. I'll move to Wikipedia space once we get a consensus to do this thing. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Helen Grant

I am the primary author of this article. It has ensure that the article adheres to policy and guidelines. Any advice on what else I can do would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagewriter (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

_{(Refactored comment to bottom pf page) -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)}

Wagnerian rock update

Saved. woo hoo! Benji boi 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue with article rescue

This is an interesting issue: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tlogmer subpages.

To wit, we need to come up with a reasonable time-limit for how long we should wait for a user to work on an article (or, in this case nine articles) before we determine the user is not actually "rescuing" the articles but is instead "walled-gardening" them in defiance of WP:DELETE. Please input. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is out of our project domain but is related to our work. I agree that it might be helpful to have a guideline for how long userfied items can exist but also feel we should support improving articles so would want to see it be a generous policy heaping of good faith. Benji boi 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The length of time should depend on the nature of the article, and the possibility of improvement. I dont see how we could have a fixed time, but I would certainly allow for several months in most cases. One of the subpages up for deletion there was userified only 8 days before the MfD. DGG (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no plan for actually improving the Tlogmer sub-pages and restoring them to main space. Most people are aware that userfied pages still show up in Google searches, and that seems questionable if they are never going to make the grade as real articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, unless you are claiming mind-reading and intent-intuiting abilities we should extend reasonable good faith towards these side pages. I do share the concern that some readers would not know the difference and would assume they are at a regular page so would support an appropriate template "This page is on a subpage of {{User so-and-so}} and is not an official article on Wikipedia and may not meet the standards for verifiability," etc "this article is likely under construction and may be removed according to wikipedia's policies on deletion." Benji boi 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Myrzakulov equations up for deletion

I've added a rescue tag and invite all to tis challenge, woo hoo! Physics! The article seems in a good gray area with refs and sources cited but poorly written due to lack on English skills. All help appreciated. Benji boi 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescue tag placement

User:Fosnez and I have had a discussion here that begs the input of the ARS project, and the Wikipedia Community at large.

At issue: Where is the proper place to place the {{Rescue}} tag?

Fosnez contends, (supported by current wording on our project page,) that the placement should be before the End of AFD comment as below, in order to make it easier for the closing admin to remove the Rescue template while closing the Afd:

{{Rescue}}

My contention is that the AfD message asks the editor not to edit above that line, and that the proper placement should be as below:

{{Rescue}}

Admittedly, there have been examples where the template has been applied such as in the second case, where the closing admin did not remove the Rescue template. I believe the better response is to educate administrators that the Rescue tag is to be removed when closing an AfD, this could be done by adding reminder text to the template, and/or mentioning their removal at Wikipedia:Deletion_process.

This might seem like a trivial RfC, but given the ARS project's history of MfD's and other contentious discussions about Rescue itself, I want to make absolutely sure that we are operating fully within policy/guideline. -- RoninBK _{T C} 06:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good case for WP:IAR to me. Sticking it within the "admin: remove this" brackets helps to produce the desired result and doesn't seem to cause any undesired side effects.--Father Goose (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, by putting it inside the "don't edit this" part of the AfD template we are in effect saying that the removal of the rescue template is a breach of policy, rather than just a courtesy issue. I don't know if we should consider this as an undesired side effect. Taemyr (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so there is a drawback. One option, then, is to add a note to admins to the Rescue template telling them to remove it at the same time as the AfD template. And even if they don't remove it, it's not like it's a major problem for an Article Rescuer to remove it instead.--Father Goose (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Since placement of the template is suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion we are in fact "officially" a part of the AfD process, rather than an independent project. So my comment earlier is moot.(and was moot at the time it was written) Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, while no offence is intended, I strongly oppose this change. The current system, like mac computers (apparently), just works. The tag is added by an editor, it is left there, and it is automatically removed with the afd notice. Concerns were raised during the two mfd for the {{rescue}} that it should never remain on the article after the afd is closed, having it automatically removed with the afd solves this. Otherwise the rescue squad has to spend less time actually fixing articles, and more time performing maintenance by double checking each article to make sure that the tag was removed when the afd was closed - not acceptable IMHO. Regarding educating admins, and again I have to stress my lack of offensive intent, it was hard enough convincing them to allow the {{rescue}} tag on the article page - lets not stir up another beehive by making the closure of AfDs even more complicated... - Fosnez (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The template needs to go on the talkpage. On the articles that are routinely "rescued" there are often multiple issues, and in some cases the "please keep" template pushes the actual article below the fold. Wikiproject-type templates do not belong in the mainspace, period. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the ugly AfD (which is largely a wikiproject itself as I see many of the same people in AfDs) template can go on the article page, so should a proactive rescue template. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So, because AfD is allowed to take up space (AfD tag neutrally encourages people to discuss the article, without pushing towards either keep or delete, which is a key difference here.), then it's ok to throw more in there, and push the article completely off the page? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The rescue template does not encourage people to keep; rather it encourages people to make some effort to actually improve the article; it doesn't say to participate in the AfD. And after all we're here to improve articles that people consider encyclopedic, which is what the tag states; we're not here to just remove useful and interesting information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. On a lot of these pages, there are already a plethora of tags. Generally, the article already neutrally reflects that it is up for deletion. Is there a good reason then, to put yet another big tag, on the article page, where one on the talkpage would suffice? I can help with the templates, if you guys would like. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless if we also put the much uglier/bigger delete tag on the talk page as well, I see no advantage for adding the rescue tag on the talk page as it encourages editors who come to the article and are interested in it to make a more vigorous effort to improve the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The uglinest/postion of the AfD template really is imaterial. SQL, this has already been debated. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_24#Template:Rescue

Hey, I just ran into it recently, and, this seemed like a logical place to discuss it, originally in it's own section, but, then noticing the RFCPol, this seemed like a good place to move it to. I can't reasonably be expected to go through every link in "What links here", when bringing forth a legitimate good-faith concern.

Now, back to the matter at hand. I understand, that the official deletion templates exist, and, that they are not the prettiest things on the planet themselves. I suppose to get right down to it, What extra value does the rescue template add, that it has to be on the main article page?. I mean -- if the article is promising / good enough to be saved -- why push it further off / often completely off the page? The folks here, should know just as well as I do, that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very good argument. I think, you are quite possibly right, about moving the XfD tags to the talkpage too, but, this is not the proper venue for that discussion, nor did I intentionally bring that discussion here. I made a very good-faith attempt at trying to figure out why the rescue tag needs to be placed in NS0 (the article's page), but, I can't come up with a major benefit of that. I can, however, see several issues that I've mentioned above, with it being in the mainspace. I'm not asking (or suggesting), that the template be deleted. I'm not trying to put a stop to this wikiproject, or have it deleted either. I'm merely asking, that we seriously consider if this template really needs to be added to the article space, or, if it can perform the same function, with less disadvantages on the talkpage. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The major benefit, as far as I can see is that the AfD template tells people; If you have views on the deletion of this article then feel free to comment in the discussion. The rescue template suggest that a better option might be to fix the article. Taemyr (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New project idea

I have an idea for a new project that I believe is somewhat related to the kind of work we do here and so I think it fair that members of the ARS be aware of this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescue template

The template only links to the 1st AfD, is there a parameter for 2nd and 3d nominations, etc.?

Use {{rescue|page=Example (2nd nomination)}}. Taemyr (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Stevie Hoang was deprodded today. Next week I was planning to AFD the thing if it shows no improvement. Instead, I think it would be better to let the Rescue Squad know about it. If it still looks nn next week, I'll lay a rescue template on it unless I hear back that it is beyond all hope first. Dloh cierekim 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, does the tag add the article to a category, like "Article for Rescue"? If so, it's something I could check from time to time. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it and try to help out. {{rescue}} adds to a category, yes...should say on the template, or on the main ARS page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've searched around a bit, and I'm not finding anything...he had a mention on NME, but it was only a video, and his All Music Guide profile is just his genre and the title of his album. Nothing there to write a biography, or an article about the album. I'm going to AfD. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The category is mentioned on the ARS page. In the first sentence in fact. It has the unvieldy name of Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. Taemyr (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, water. Yoicks, can we change the category to "Articles to be Rescued"? Dloh cierekim 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't articles that need work, but aren't under AfD, more WP:ICU's bailiwick? SamBC(talk) 14:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Can we have Articles for Resurrection for those article that have from Wikipedia been untimely ript? Dloh cierekim 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need a shortcut to the category, CAT:ARS works (as of yesterday). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming our category

Why Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. And not for example Category:Articles for rescue or Category:Rescue candidates? The former is a long name that could apply to any article for which the deletion is debated. The latter two gets to the point. Taemyr (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Did not see this string before I posted. Dloh cierekim 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout "Articles for Rescue, Fixup" (ARF)"? Dloh cierekim 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Category:Articles for rescue, in accordance with this page's name. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2 things - Proposed policy relevant to ARS work, and a potential rescue article.

At the wt:notability page there is discussion of a new policy that might help to reduce AfD's for NN that are potentially salvagable. In other words, a policy which would reduce the "urgent" workload of ARS by preventing unnecessary AfDs and PRODs. I know ARS members do not typically engage in talk pages but if you would be kind enough to read the proposed policy here[5] and give feedback it would be appreciated. This is still in draft mode and so your opinions would be most welcome.

On a separate topic more to the normal activities of ARS please take a look at the article position paper which certainly can be rescued. The flaw is that up until now it has been pretty badly scoped to only refer to the term as used with the Model United Nations. Position papers are a common occurence in many political and even commercial organizations and certainly must be encyclopedic. While I am not an expert on this subject my instincts tell me there must be some famous or infamous position papers out there. This article is not yet tagged for deletion but it was PRODed once and I suspect it will be tagged again so I thought a little "heads up" on the article/topic before crunch time might help. -- Low Sea (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ARS is solely for articles on AFD. I have put this article into the WP:ICU project. Taemyr (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Is the grammar in this template incorrect?

Shouldn't it be... "Please read the deletion discussion, and, if you can help by citing sources and establishing notability, please edit this article." I could be wrong. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You give one comma too many, should be: "Please read the deletion discussion and, if you can help by citing sources and establishing notability, please edit this article." It could equally be: "Please read the deletion discussion, and if you can help by citing sources and establishing notability please edit this article.", but that's less clean IMO. However, it really isn't important. SamBC(talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've diagrammed it two ways. One is as a compound sentence, and one is as a complex sentence. I'm not going to show them here, though. (If it's a complex sentence, shouldn't it have one less "please"?) My point is: if you expect to be taken seriously, you should use good grammar. Common knowledge, if you ask me. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction was to check Elements of style. See this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've totally reworded it. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good effort, but there are a few issues with the current version. As a non-native speaker, I would confused as to what the intended referent of the "it" in the second line was if I was not au fait with Wikipedia practice. "Improve the deletion discussion" is a reasonable interpretation that I think we want to avoid. We might want to group the Googles together. Also, are we no longer saying please? Skomorokh 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Alright, how's this version? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Larson O'Brien Entry

The Larson O'Brien entry seems to be a valid topic within the world of advertising and public relations agencies. It is similar to existing entries of other advertising and PR firms and serves a number of important readerships for Wikipedia. All help would be greatly appreciated. Dan T.Dt320 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

300 M.P.H. Torrential Outpour Blues

I've flagged the above The White Stripes song for rescue it is currently in an AFD. I know it's notable however it's a fairly new article and I have had trouble finding notable sources just because there are so many online hits about this song that its a needle in a haystack trying to find the notable publications that talk about this song. Can you help? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Force lightning and Mas Amedda

I have flagged these two articles for rescue and have begun improving them. For Mas Amedda, for example, please note the nominated version versus its current version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Structural bamboo

Is structural bamboo worth salvaging? as bamboo is used as construction material in East/Southeast Asia. 70.55.86.17 (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer; no. Long answer; Much of this content has encyclopedic interest, and if it can be sourced to reliable sources then an article such as Bamboo in construction should be created. Taemyr (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Taemyr, although I would add that the topic seems to be notable enough - there are plenty of hits on Structural Bamboo in reliable sources, so it may be possible to rescue it. Although Bamboo in construction might well be a better choice. - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Improvement

I listed this WikiProject at Article Improvement and Grading. GregManninLB (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"List of environmental periodicals" and "List of environmental websites"

These two articles are being considered for deletion.

-- Wavelength (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)