Misplaced Pages

talk:Article Incubator: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:55, 24 June 2013 editUnscintillating (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,833 edits →incubated article created in mainspace: Incubator portal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:56, 7 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,025,754 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(120 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Ombox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = '''This workspace has been discussed by the community, and the community decided that it should be closed down.''' The workspace has been subsumed at ]. Incubation as a process remains a part of ]. If you wish to reactivate the Article Incubator, consider seeking opinions and establishing consensus via ]. The discussion that established a consensus to close down this workspace is found here:
*]
}}<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{categories}}}|no||]}}</includeonly><noinclude>

{{talkheader|search=y}} {{talkheader|search=y}}
{{Auto archiving notice | bot = MiszaBot I | age = 2 | units = months }}
{{WPAI|class=project}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 10: Line 15:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{oldmfd|date=18 September 2009|result='''keep'''|page=Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator}} {{oldmfd|date=18 September 2009|result='''keep'''|page=Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator}}

== Proposed deprecation of this project ==

I propose we formally deprecate the Incubator as it hasn't been used. ] will remain as an option for deleted articles.

Articles currently in the incubator can be slowly worked or sent to ] if it's obvious there's no interest in improving the article enough to promote it. When the backlog is empty, the whole project can be marked historical. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
:Agree completely. This project has accomplished little, and has not attracted the kind of workforce that AfC has. I think we should suggest that if deleted articles want to be worked on as drafts, they should reenter the AfC process. I will open a discussion on the AfC project talk page about this. ] (]) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. I initiated a discussion regarding clean-up of some of the articles in the incubator: ] and listed some for deletion: ] and ]. Regards, ] (]) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. The project is still getting some use. See, for example, ] and ]. ] (]) 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't call that using the project per-se. It does indicate we can't just bulk delete the incubated articles, and will probably need to consider them on a case by case basis. ] (]) 14:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
::] does not do a good job of showing that the project is being useful. The article has not been edited at all since being incubated. OK, it's fairly early days, as it has only been in the incubator for a month and eight days, and it may yet be edited, but my experience is that an incubated article that has not been substantially worked on within that time will almost always still not have been worked on a year later. ] (]) 09:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

:I've listed another set of ten articles that haven't been edited in over a year at MfD: ]. ] (]) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be merged into ] Articles for Creation, considering that they now support unsubmitted drafts? incubated articles would just be unsubmitted drafts, waiting for conversion into submitted drafts at AfC. -- ] (]) 05:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
::We could, but incubated articles are supposed to be articles that were created and then deleted for whatever reason. It was basically supposed to be an organized place to "rescue" articles, with longer than a 7 day time limit. ] (]) 14:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

::AfC has enough problems of its own, without adding another track of articles into it. Normally I do support merging projects, but AfC is so radically unsatisfactory that the fewer articles in it the better. ''']''' (]) 05:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Well in any case I still think we should semi-officially put this project to bed. There is clearly not the level of interest that it requires to be sustained. Not to mention there's nothing stopping people from collaborating on "rescued" articles in userspace with pretty generous time limits. ] (]) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support deprecation.''' It is an unfortunate fact that, despite the best intentions of the people who created the article incubator, its main use in practice has been as a way of keeping unsuitable articles that nobody is actually willing to work on. The substantial majority of all the articles that have ever been incubated have either been left lying around for ages and eventually deleted, or are still lying around with no significant editing, or even none at all. Only a minority have actually had any work done on them. What usually happens is that someone sees an unacceptable article that is heading for deletion, and suggests putting it in the article incubator in a sort of vague hope that ''someone or other'' will come along and save it, but they are not willing to take any effort to save it themselves. It would be no better to add it to AfC and leave it in the hope that someone would save it there: in fact it would be worse, for the reason that DGG has mentioned. The best option, when someone thinks an article at AfD may be worth saving, is for that person to take on the job in their own userspace. Even that is far from perfect, because very often userfied articles just get forgotten and left in userspace for years, but at least it would mean that there was someone who had expressed ''the intention'' of working on the article, and having it in their own userspace might encourage them to actually work on it, rather than walk away relying on "someone" to turn up and deal with it. If there is nobody who is willing to say "I will try to save the article", then there is little if any point in keeping it hanging around being forgotten. ] (]) 09:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

*As an interim step: All articles left unedited in the incubator for thirty days are deleted or userfied. See how that works out. ] (]) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
::I tried suggesting that idea (]), but it didn't get much traction. I have been sending batches of ten articles in the incubator to ]. The latest is: ]. Regards, ] (]) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
:::You say the idea "didn't get much traction", but certainly there was general support for the idea that ''something'' ought to be done. ] made a good point in that discussion; "I think that userfying is probably not a good idea. While in the Incubator it is relatively easy to search - Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator - and check them; and there is a (small but non-zero) chance of someone improving them. Or sending to deletion. Scattered around on user subpages they're harder to find." However, I really think that the main problem is that, whether in the incubator or in user space, there are just to many people storing pages somewhere or other that they hope someone else will turn into articles, but that don't do anything about it. AfC is not quite the same, as the idea is that the initial poster does do the work, and someone else just assesses it; however, the problem is simply that there are far more people creating submissions than there are people assessing them. However, the same fundamental point applies to all of these repositories of draft articles: there are plenty of people putting things into draft space, but few people following the drafts up. My guess is that whatever we do, that will be the case. Taking them one by one to MfD takes up too much editor time that could be better spent on more productive work, and at present the best method of dealing with them is taking batches of them to MfD. ] (]) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

== Proposed change to WP:Non-free content ==

] is related to pages in the Incubator. Please read it and provide your input there. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

== List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) ==

] was copy-and-pasted out of the incubator from ]. It was incubated via AfD ]. The attribution of the current mainspace version is broken, since the edit history remains in the incubator. The talk page similarly is broken, since the development comments remains in the incubator. Currently at ] there is a discussion on what to do with the mainspace version. Since this article exists simultaneously in the incubator and in mainspace, with the same verbatim content, you may be interested in this situation. -- ] (]) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
::Seems to be fixed now. ] (]) 14:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

== Add WikiProject status/Inactive in 1 week if there are no objections ==

<small>{{withdrawn}} - no consensus to mark project as inactive. See discussion above and below dated after 19:55 20 May 2013. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)</small>


If nobody objects sooner, will the first editor who sees this after 19:55, 20 May 2013 mark the project {{tl|WikiProject status/Inactive}}? ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 19:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
:And just what is your problem with the incubator?&nbsp; ] (]) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
::I don't have a problem with it, I just don't see it as an active project and don't want to mislead editors who may assume it is active. The discussion above indicates it's pretty much inactive or nearly so. Obviously, by your reply, it's not inactive enough to tag it as inactive. But the discussion above still stands - it's almost to that point. ]/<small><small>(])/(])/(])</small></small> 23:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I have posted a question at ] that I believe draws attention to a role for the incubator.&nbsp; ] (]) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

== Potential new function/workflow ==

There seems to be a little stirring from some editors that would like to revive the incubator. Because of the unusual nature of this project (in that anyone could pretty much start their own incubator anyway), I don't think we should mark historical over genuine objections.

I propose the following (based on prior proposals of several editors):
* Rename to "Deleted drafts for adoption"
* Change the main page to AfD style format with transcluded sections
* Store drafts as subpages only while discussions are open
* Issues are closed after 30 days pass.
* Possible closures are:
** '''Move back to article space''': article has improved significantly over the 30 days and addresses whatever got it deleted
** '''Userfy''': One editor is actively working on the article and has actually edited it
** '''Relist''': Should be extremely rare based on past experience, only done when multiple editors are actively working on the article, but its fate remains unclear. If only one editor is working on it, userfy.
** '''Delete''': The default action if no one has done anything significant to the article during the 30 day period or if no one has commented. If someone expressed intent to work on the article but then did not do so, may be deleted or userfied at the discretion of the closer. Of special note is that the article should be moved back to article space, and then deleted, so that the history resides at its article space title. Under our old workflow, the incubator was a black hole for article histories. We should fix that, it's a minor copyright issue. ] (]) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
*I'm probably missing the big picture here, but I agree that articles brought to the incubator need to have a timeout after which something happens.&nbsp; The Speedy Incubate has not caught on, but has received positive comments.&nbsp; For breaking events whose notability is in flux, one to two weeks is enough time in the incubator for the weekly news magazines to weigh in.&nbsp; I saw another AfD case that the topic needed to be in the incubator for a year before we'd move from WP:CRYSTAL knowledge to the thing actually existing.&nbsp; ] (]) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

*Incubator is great in theory... but is not achieving its purpose in actual practice. I think the incubator has become (or perhaps always was) a way of passing the buck... it's a dumping ground for articles we think ''might'' be savable - if '''''someone else''''' is willing to work on it. What incubation needs is accountability... something to encourage editors to step up to the plate and say "I am not going to leave this for someone else... '''I''' am willing to work on this article". A thirty day time limit would do so. ] (]) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
**Yes, this is exactly the problem I hope to solve with this proposal. The details can be flexible; it doesn't need to be afd style, as long as there's a way to figure out what needs to be done after the the time interval expires. ] (]) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
::*The discussion thread here got one comment at ], which basicly was that a thirty-day limit would be a restriction that would prevent Chobham Academy from being considered for the incubator.&nbsp; The Chobham Academy would be scheduled to open in September, which is why thirty days and out would not work.&nbsp; ] (]) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
*I don't think there is a need to replace the main page with a list, but a list of all articles and a flexible maximum time period would be helpful. No need to have an AfD style discussion - that is just a waste of resources. Something like have a list of all articles where comments can be left about what needs done, plans to work on it, etc. If no one has edited (minor edits don't count) or commented on an article in say 30 days and there is no reason to believe someone will soon (i.e. its not a upcoming event), then an admin can delete it w/o further notice and perhaps put the title only on a list of previous failed incubation which can be restored upon request. --] (]) 00:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

== Additional MfD listings ==

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

] (]) 04:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:*This was not entirely random because I picked a name that looked interesting, but I sampled one of these MfDs and found an article that belonged in the incubator.&nbsp; There is on-going discussion above, and you have previously been taking ten articles at a time to MdD.&nbsp; Why did you suddenly create 88 MfD discussions?&nbsp; ] (]) 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:::The last time I sent a group of 10 to MfD, I was told to nominate them individually: ]. This list comprises all articles in the incubator that have had no substantial activity for at least 12 months. Regards, ] (]) 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
::I took a look at the first three... here is my take
::*] is a case of failed incubation... ie incubation did not result in any improvement. I would say delete.
::*] ''should never have been sent to the incubator in the first place'' ... it should have been '''Merged''' into ]).
::*] looks to be one where incubator actually worked. It appears to be a solid article, with citations etc. Unless there is some other issue, it should probably be moved into mainspace.
::In other words... just looking at the first three, we have three different and distinct problems to deal with. It's a mess. ] (]) 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
::*How many man-hours of work do you think those 88 articles represent?&nbsp; The mess is not the work of the editors who contributed to Misplaced Pages, the mess is not having a plan and a schedule for dealing with the work in the incubator.&nbsp; So create a schedule for each article.&nbsp; Starting seven days from now, one article per day is scheduled to go to MfD.&nbsp; For the first article on the list, the editors here have seven days to prep the article.&nbsp; Bulma could be the first one, and Auld Lang Syne the second.&nbsp; If editors who have looked at the topic agree on the talk page, the MfD forceout posting date can be postponed to a specific date in the future after a given event has occurred.&nbsp; If talk page consensus is reached, including delete and keep, no need to push the article to MfD.&nbsp; This will give the volunteers here a clear target on what to work on next, but without the article actually being on the chopping block at MfD.&nbsp; Since the current articles would be more convenient in a transcluded discussion, transclude 7 to 14 days of talk pages to provide a centralized discussion.&nbsp; ] (]) 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

I ginned up a set of transclusions of the first seven talk pages above and associated them with closeout dates.&nbsp; You'll see many issues, but the page as a whole is live.&nbsp; ] (]) 04:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
*I've started a page at ] for further discussion.&nbsp; ] (]) 23:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
*'''Update'''&nbsp; After I got things set up and rolling at the Greenhouse, I asked ], "Please agree to withdraw your 58 nominations", but Illia has not responded.&nbsp; The first Greenhouse closeout day of 2013-06-02 is approaching, but the 58 MfDs continue and are scheduled to begin closing tomorrow.&nbsp; ] (]) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
*'''Update'''&nbsp; The large majority of the 58 MfD listings are being ignored.&nbsp; But so are the greenhouse plans to manage those 58 articles.&nbsp; ] (]) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
*With the first deletion of the 58 articles at MfD, to ], I've delisted the articles currently scheduled in the greenhouse.&nbsp; ] (]) 00:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

== SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV ==

I moved ] from the incubator to main space. ] (]) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

== incubated article created in mainspace ==


== Request for information on WP1.0 web tool ==
What is the procedure for an article created in mainspace while a similar article exists in the incubator?&nbsp; The article is ].&nbsp; ] (]) 05:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the ]! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the ] that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
: It would seem like multiple people trying to create the article independently would indicate a certain level of notability.... but that is something else to be discussed in another forum. What I've done in the past is to even encouraging salting the article if necessary in that situation, but when the incubated article is ready to be released (having met notability and other issues mentioned in previous AfD discussions because of changing circumstances like several newspaper accounts or other reliable sources publishing new information about the topic) to perform a Deletion Review and asking for the article to be restored to the main article space... unsalting as necessary and restoring from the incubation. That at least is the path of least resistance at the moment and keeps most people happy who may or may not care about the incubator and can enlist some help from administrators as necessary too.


We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at where you can leave your response. ] (]) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
: Another alternative might be to redirect from mainspace to the incubated article, but that is much more controversial even if there is a huge banner at the top suggesting it is an incubated article, thus not to be trusted. In the meantime, if you are working on the incubated article and notice the mainspace article creation, you might want to quickly glance through the sources (if any) of that article and try to merge them into the incubated article as appropriate if they aren't in the incubated article. Certainly try to contact the author of that new article on their talk page and enlist their help in maintaining or updating the incubated article. --] (]) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:JJMC89@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/ListOfProjects&oldid=923068486 -->
::A redirect doesn't work, because it would be too easy for people to arrive at the article without knowing they have left mainspace.&nbsp; Most projects have portals, which is an accepted path to bring readers from mainspace to Misplaced Pages space.&nbsp; ] (]) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21#Misplaced Pages:AI}} until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:56, 7 October 2024

Red XThis workspace has been discussed by the community, and the community decided that it should be closed down. The workspace has been subsumed at WP:Drafts. Incubation as a process remains a part of WP:Deletion policy. If you wish to reactivate the Article Incubator, consider seeking opinions and establishing consensus via Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. The discussion that established a consensus to close down this workspace is found here:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Incubator page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:AI" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:AI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Misplaced Pages:AI until a consensus is reached. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator: Difference between revisions Add topic