Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 24 April 2009

Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: James Gleick (8 August 2008). "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt: In Alexandria, 650 Devotees Bemoan Vandals, Debate Rules; Deletionists vs. Inclusionists". Wall Street Journal. Nicholson Baker (20 March 2008). "The Charms of Misplaced Pages". New York Review of Books.

Welcome to the talkpage of the Article Rescue Squadron. If you are looking for assistance to rescue an article please follow these instructions.

Template:Multidel

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61

• WP:ARSMENUS

For articles listed for rescue consideration, see Article Rescue Squadron Rescue list

There are currently 659 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

Articles

Articles currently tagged for deletion

• Main page: Category: Articles for deletion

Articles currently proposed for deletion

• Main page: Category: Proposed deletion and Category: All articles proposed for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) Notability. Alleged WP:COI. Acerbic discussion. Counting merger discussions, a previous deletion, etc., looks closer to a 4th nomination. Sourcing was poorly done. I've fixed references and links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

• Misplaced Pages: Article Rescue Squadron - Biographies of living persons
• Article Rescue Squadron – BLP rescue volunteers

Articles with topics of unclear notability

• Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability – lists topics that are unclear regarding their notability.

Content

Files for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Files for discussion
  

Categories for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Templates for discussion
  

Redirects for discussion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Redirects for discussion

Stub types for deletion

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Stub types for deletion

Miscellany for deletion

• Main pages: Misplaced Pages: Miscellany for deletion and Category: Miscellaneous pages for deletion

Search all deletion discussions

About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Article alerts

• Main page: Misplaced Pages: Article alerts

Recognition of efforts

Barnstars project

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

New idea to recognize efforts

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

Example

Recognition of embattled users

Collapsed for navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages: ==Welcome== Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like[REDACTED] and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please . Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{Subst:User:Ikip/t}} The template signs your name for you. It is part of: Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) {{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}} Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Medals

AFD summaries

Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

{{findsourcesnotice}}

Hi ARS. I created {{findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ARS talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiads

See: Template:Misplaced Pages-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of certain fiction articles as a result of a proposed notability guideline directed specifically toward fiction. If you feel inclined, please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Thanks, Schmidt, 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:

• Category:WikiProject Films newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters
• Category:WikiProject India newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters
• Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page

User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

Template:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}}

This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Misplaced Pages:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
2. Misplaced Pages:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
3. Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Misplaced Pages urges any contributor to read the Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
4. Misplaced Pages:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
5. Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
6. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
7. Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is affected when an article is deleted

After a couple of months of compiling data, I finally finished the first section of my research: User:Ikip/AfD on average day, thanks to a dozen admins who gave me a copy of the deleted material. I found what many article squadron members already know, that our current deletion policy overwhelmingly effect new users:

1. 31 out of 98 articles, nearly one third, which were put up for deletion were created by editors whose very first contributions was the new article.
2. 66 out of 98 articles, 67%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 100 contributions or less when they created the article.
3. 81 out of 98 articles, 82.6%, which were put up for deletion were created by editors who had 1000 contributions or less when they created the article.

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users?

Further research includes:

1. Finding out the number of contributions that those who nominate articles have.
2. Seeing if any nominator followed WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating the article for deletion (I postulate that none of them did, or maybe 1)
3. Seeing how many of the articles were nominated because of "notability"
4. Seeing how many users left[REDACTED] because their article was deleted.
5. Seeing how these new users were treated on their talk pages. Ikip (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They have a tool to see how many things someone has nominated for deletion. Would that help? I think it gives other information too. Notability is almost always the excuse for deleting something. And many rabid deleters do not explain things on the talk page for the article or the user's page, even for a first time contributor. And do you just want to see how many new editors were driven away by their first article being attacked, or do you wish to include those who just made simple first time edits on an article, and without explaining to them what they did wrong, another editor reverted what they did, and warned them against vandalism, even when clearly they were putting something they thought legitimate there? Should the new comer have to post a question asking what was wrong with their edit, or should the editor reverting be the one to explain why they were reverting it? And are you looking at the number of hits the[REDACTED] gets and the number of new users that register or post as an IP address, or just the number of people that don't make any edits or create new articles ever again after their first unpleasant encounter? They keep track already of what types of articles what percentage of the[REDACTED] traffic. I wonder how many increases hits the wikia gets, as the number of[REDACTED] hits goes down in some categories, fans of a series wishing more information, only able to get it on external wikis. Dream Focus (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas how I can figure out if there is a definite link in the drop in editing since October 2007 to the treatment of new users?

There isn't even a correlation unless you can somehow establish that this is a new trend, which would surprise me greatly. New users are the least likely to understand Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it will be very difficult to find a correlation. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this. Some random thoughts:

• There is to some extent a perception of "This article has lasted this long, there must be some value to it." This was part of what stymied WP:BAND for so long. Personally, I'd rather reverse this stigma (new articles given a chance, old articles with little progress despite their age looked down upon), but it does exist.
• New users are the least likely to understand Misplaced Pages's standards of inclusion, be they written or unwritten. Long-time users are unlikely to write articles about themselves, their cat, their band, etc.
• It would be very difficult to create an objective standard of "nominated because of notability". The word is slippery, and means different things to different people at different times, particularly before WP:GNG/"On Notability".
• New articles are subject to more scrutiny due to appearing on Special:Newpages; old articles, especially orphans, may only get spotted by bots or people who fool with Special:Random.

Just some thinking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is this possibility: Once upon a time, when Misplaced Pages had many fewer articles, it was easier for a newbie to find something worth keeping than it is now. When I started, red links & articles consisting of only a sentence fragment could be found at every turn. Heck, over half of the Roman Emperors did not have articles. I suspect around 2006/2007 Misplaced Pages passed the point where a new user could think of a missing subject within 15 minutes, so she/he had the choice between something clearly esoteric or obscure -- say an Ethiopian politician -- or something of dubious interest to a stranger -- like garage bands, local celebrities, etc. Some get zapped because they simply aren't notable, which is fine; but some get zapped because the person creating the article doesn't know how to establish notability for the subject in a way that will satisfy a skeptical Admin, which isn't. Briefly put, it's just getting harder to create a new article at Misplaced Pages, but not yet impossible. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's odd that you would mention an admin. You don't need to be an admin to nominate something for AFD, or comment at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've thought of that, too. There are two things that counter that argument, however. The first is the survey that you can read about in this Signpost article. The second is direct experience. There are huge areas that I know from experience we have woefully incomplete coverage of. Ironically, I often find them when doing rescues. I just found yet another batch of such missing topics in exactly that way. You can see them at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination) (q.v.). There are still redlinks to be found if one knows where to look.

    Furthermore: Remember how old Misplaced Pages:List of bad article ideas is. Even four years ago, people writing about themselves, their bands, their pets, and whatnot, was endemic. That's not a new trend at all. There probably only seems to be more of it than there was 8 years ago simply because there are a lot more people editing Misplaced Pages than there were 8 years ago.

    Let me suggest some food for thought:

    The problem may well be nothing at all to do with a lack of new subjects yet to cover, and rather to do with something else entirely that has been a noticeable trend of late: the rather odd and un-Misplaced Pages-like notion that redlinks are bad, and that the encyclopaedia is somehow now complete. This is particularly noticable at disambiguation articles, where editors regularly purge them of dangling hyperlinks, under the guise of enforcing style guidelines. We used to treat redlinks at invitations to write. Disambiguation articles, especially disambiguations for initialisms and acronyms, used to be one place where one could find missing topics readily, with many redlinks being placeholders. No longer is this the case. We've already reached the point where editors regard disambiguation articles that have all redlinks as targets for deletion, rather than as invitations to create the missing articles listed. They reach for their deletion nomination templates instead of for "create this article". Witness Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GADS. Most importantly, witness what happened, after the AFD discussion, to the remaining missing articles that were not created during the discussion. That happens all of the time. Some people even appear to have cooked up scripts for doing it.

    Also notice that on a regular basis there are bursts of nominations of disambiguation articles for Proposed Deletion because "hatnotes on 2 pages suffice". Sometimes they have only two entries in the first place because the other entries, suggesting missing articles that people could create, have been removed.

    If you want a more readily apparent reason for readers (erroneously) thinking that there's nothing new left to create, look to the fact that we now actively hide the redlinks from readers in hundreds of thousands of articles. I used to find ideas for missing articles to create in disambiguations. Did you?

    This effort, to actively purge redlinks from a whole class of pages, that are (by their very nature) some of the most commonly navigated ones in the encyclopaedia, all in the name of "style", is perhaps where you should best lay the blame for not seeing as many redlinks as you used to see years back, Llywrch.

    As I said: food for thought. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

    • No, I see lots of redlinks in my corner of Misplaced Pages, & I make them too like Coffee production in Ethiopia. The people you write about, Uncle G, haven't gotten to my corner yet; I'd like to think it's because I write better stubs about towns & villages than some folks. (More likely it's because I deal in Ethiopia-cruft, & they haven't decided to sluice out that part of the stables yet.) And the two cents I pitched in above were not meant to exclude any other explanation -- just pointing out that the Misplaced Pages of 2003 is not the Misplaced Pages of 2009: the windfalls have all been harvested, & most of what White, middle-class Euro-American computer nerds consider the low-hanging fruit have been picked. -- llywrch (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You remind me of another rescue: Agriculture in Senegal (AfD discussion). ☺

        That's the point, though. Your personal experience is like mine: There are redlinks and stubs aplenty still to be had. And that's not unexpected, in truth. No reasonable person would expect us to have achieved complete coverage of every existing subject in this time. Our experience bears out what the survey says: There's as much scope for expansion now as there was before. And although there is, quite obviously, systemic bias (including egregious FUTON bias), the point is also that that isn't necessarily a causative factor at all in the creation of the bad articles on the bad article ideas list.

        There have always been people coming here for the wrong reasons — to self-publicize, to hoax, to advertise, to document the undocumented, to add new things that they just made up, or simply to use a free WWW site that costs them nothing as their personal scribbling board (like children with a packet of crayons and a blank wall). The Misplaced Pages of 2003 (or even earlier) had that problem. It simply wasn't as popular as the Misplaced Pages of 2009. That popularity alone increases the flow of bad articles. Do we even need to look for another cause?

        Also bear in mind the phenemonon that, for want of a better name, I christen Deletion Patrol bias. If one patrols AFD or Proposed Deletion, one tends to see more of the articles that are down in the dark and dank depths of Misplaced Pages. (Part of the art of article rescue is giving such articles a good solid shove upwards, in the direction of the lofty heights of Featured Articles. Most times this shove doesn't push the article up beyond the stratum of "good stub".) From that one tends to overgeneralize. But a spot of New Pages Patrol often serves to remind that there are numerous good editors out there whose articles never even come near deletion discussions, in part because they are created the right way. (There's also a New Pages Patrol bias, mentioned above by A Man In Black.) One just needs to do New Pages Patrol with an eye to how many articles one is skipping over, because they cite good sources and have no immediate cleanup issues. The articles that come up for deletion are not representative of Misplaced Pages as a whole.

        As to the whole "We're scaring off new users!" issue, my personal experience is that that's rubbish. My very first new article (created long before I had an account) was nominated for deletion. It didn't scare me off. I'm — indeed — now an administrator with a long history of article rescues. ☺ We're certainly pushing against the flow of bad articles on the bad ideas list, and discouraging the people who have the bad ideas. But that's also something that is the same as the Misplaced Pages of years ago. We've always had a clear idea of the project goal, and discouraging the bad has been as much a part of Misplaced Pages acculturation as encouraging the good. The people that Misplaced Pages needs are the people who learn from the rejection of the bad ideas, and start having good ideas instead. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: "We're scaring off new users!" issue. Before I did this painful research I only had anecdotal evidence, and my own experiences. I have now established that the majority of articles which are deleted, are created by new users.

This may sound shocking, but the quality of those articles deleted, while an important question, is not very important to the question: Are we scarring off new users? Because most new users don't know all of our rules, and are expected to add bad articles (that said, I see a lot of articles in this list which were deleted that have potential). I am going to avoid this question now, because it is subjective, and it will only cause contention and arguments.

My next step is to see what the new editors talk page looks like. I have found that many editors first welcome is "your article is going to be deleted".

Maybe the next step after that is to find 100 random new editors who have e-mail enabled, and who have no longer edited[REDACTED] for the past month, and ask them why. I hope to get maybe 20 responses, and post those responses.

Ikip (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G offhandedly brings up a good point about new users and turning the corner. At some point, there are going to be good-faith users who just haven't gotten it yet. You can argue what the proportions are, but some of those article written by new users are going to be completely useless conceptually ("John Smith and the Garage Rockers", "my cat Fluffikins", etc.), instead of simply badly-written articles with potential. Most of our "Your first article was deleted, don't give up!" advice pertains to salvaging an article that was savable. How can we better salvage users? How can we better guide a user who has an essentially wrong idea of what Misplaced Pages is for - but is still trying to help in good faith - become a productive user? I think there's a real lack of "That wasn't what we want, but you can still help!" and more of an attitude of "If you're writing articles about your cat, get lost." I'd rather see, "We don't need an article about your cat, but how about your cat's breed or the history of cats or the animal control situation in the city where you live?" but I'm not sure how to go about that.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that editors write articles that are not worth anything. Myself and others recently discussed some possibilities for change at WP:Articles for Deletion. I was disheartened that my userfication idea was so disliked. Ikip (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's that discussion? I'm losing my sanity doing searching for "userfication prefix:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion" and then looking for "Ikip" on the page.... - Pointillist (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate my user name, because it is found inside Misplaced Pages. I also changed my name.

Re: Usersification.

• Proposal: Deletion_wars:_I_propose_a_novel_solution
• Suggestion_to_redirect_most_deleted_pages_to_a_userspace
• Any_deletion_tags_mention_that_users_can_request_userfication_of_deleted_content

Regarding similar discussion as here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#82.6.25_of_articles_put_up_for_deletion_are_by_new_users
• Misplaced Pages:VPP#82.6.25_of_articles_put_up_for_deletion_were_by_new_users

Ikip (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates for Speed Deletion

I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYeller 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYeller 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ARS tools subpage?

Looking for suggestions here. I think we have a number of tools suggested in various threads above but I think we should look to cleaning up this talkpage a bit. I wonder if a "Tools" subpage might be helpful - not sure if that's the best name. My hopes is that we'll end up workshopping some into testing and approval. Others that are mothballed can be saved for future reference of ideas that didn't fly as of yet. Idea if "tools" is the best title? Any objections or major plot flaws? My hope is we could clear this talkpage a bit and could simply point to sections on that subpage when we wanted to talk about items. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template

The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves. I think it woul be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt, 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD Proposal

Contributing to some AfDs over the past two or three weeks was so horrifying and disturbing that I'm currently working on a proposal to change some things in the AfD process. Before I set it up in form to let the deletion troops place their s*** on it, we may discuss some points - and as a non-native speaker I will need your help anyway.

What I want to change:

• A nomination must be a bit more difficult. The nominator must have done some research on the topic before proposing or nominating an article for deletion. The results must be recapped and posted in the nomination.
• The nomination must begin with a half-sentence about the sort of topic, so that work is more easy for deletion sorting. It should be no problem to start like "This article about a musician..." and similiar. Maybe even a template could be created, to include the nominated article automatically to the respective categories. Something like: {{AfD template|bands and musicians=yes|living persons=yes|etc.}}.
• AfD will no longer last five days but must have a minimum of "votes" - 10, 15, 20 - I don't know. Let's discuss.
• Votes like "per nom.", "per above", "WP:XY" are prohibited. Background: "Votes" must be understandable and discussible for other people. A vote should also proof that the voter really has taken a look at the article, the sources and done a bit of own research. If someone is not able or willing to put five or ten minutes into an AfD, they should not vote. Editors have usually invested hours on an article and it's only fair to not just go through ten discussions in ten minutes.
• If significant new sources are found or if an article has gone under big changes while being at AfD, it can be relisted (there's a note currently, but with about no effect at all). Alternative: Under certain circumstances older voters can be contacted to re-vote. If they don't do, their old votes are dropped.
• Articles not falling under CSD can't be nominated for one week (or even longer?). Instead they should be tagged for the respective WikiProjects, giving the articles time to improve.

Well, take it as a starting point, not much more. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, my idea of AfD is that it asks users their opinion on the validity of a Misplaced Pages guideline/policy in a certain circumstance. For instance, if someone says, "This band isn't notable under WP:BAND point 5," and 10 people agree, I think that's important. So in short, votes such as "per nom" or "per above" are completely relevant in my opinion. While AfD isn't a vote, the guidlines and policies are to be interpreted by the Misplaced Pages community. They aren't cut and dry for a reason. I don't think nominations are too easy at the moment. Every AfD gets handled to my knowledge. Having a minimum number of responses isn't a bad idea but perhaps people don't respond because they can't decide based on the info given. In that case, the AfD nominator hasn't given enough info so a concensus wasn't reached (the article stay for now). I sort of like the idea of having a waiting period between CSD and AfD noms but I just see a lot of crap getting to stick around for ~5 days. Those are just my opinions. I appreciate your hard work and hope something positive comes from this coversation and your hard work. OlYeller 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• In theory some of this is spot on but you may want to take each point separately. First off there is a place to discuss AfD proposals such as this so I presume you're looking for some initial feedback. That said this project includes deletionists as well and anyone who helps, IMHO, is welcome so you may wish to strike out (<s></s>) that bit here as it doesn't help much. I think WP:Before has a lot of merit but is doesn't seem to be enforced. Bad noms are made, fail but nothing happens to ensure the nom doesn't repeat. Not sure any easy solution there but I personally would like to see a checklist approach for most AfDs where one needs to work to improve an article with clean-up tags first and affirm that they cannot find sourcing to standards and the subject is not notable before the AfD is started. I am troubled but those who seem to be systematically deleting articles and with volume make many bad noms. Removing articles that shouldn't be here is fine but obviously that is not all that is happening. -- Banjeboi 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure how you could make a standard for this that wouldn't be gamed, gamed, gamed. If there are trivially available sources around and the nominator doesn't find them, other people will. (It's kind of the point of AFD.) Any nomination that would practically be prevented by this is harmless, whereas putting teeth on that leads to "The nominator didn't check thus-and-so, speedy keep" (even though "thus-and-so" is useless). Nominators are already expected to do their best, and if that's not good enough that's why AFDs last five days.
2. No nomination that isn't something patently obviously dumb succeeds without at least this. Again, it's instruction creep if you put teeth on it.
3. Why?
4. These votes are already given little consideration by closing admins unless they are trying to see how much success and impact an argument has. (Canvassing sadly washes out any hope of using this as a gauge of late, though.) They're harmless.
5. I see these articles relisted all the time, I don't know what you're talking about. Likewise, comments that are obviously about older versions of the article are dealt with accordingly in closes.
6. This is one of those perennial bad ideas. There are lots of really terrible article ideas that technically skate past A7 but obviously aren't going anywhere.

Excepting #3 and #6, you want to put teeth on things we already do all the time. AFD is already heavily criticized for being endlessly complex and bureaucratic, so adding more layers of complexity and bureaucracy will only aggravate this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Comments. I share some of these ideas. In particular

1. YES A search should absolutely be required for anything nominated for lack of sources to prove notability,or anything equivalent to that where a search would be helpful. Getting a proper search as a requirement would come later--the first step is to deal with the articles for which sources couldb e found easily by the simplest of Google searches.
2. YES a nomination shouldat least say what the article is about, so people can screen what they want to work on,
3. 'NO, sometimes 4 or 5 votes is enough. But at least 5 days should always be allowed, for people need timeto contribute to the discussion. Jusdt going by number of votes leads to false reports of snow, due to early vote stacking. First improvement here would be to change to 7 days. This one was mis-conceived,
4. Yes, people should at least say what it is they are agreeing with. They should at least go to the trouble of saying just what policy is broken.
5. Sometimes--the correct thing to do if it isnt obvious, is to relist,and notify the earlier voters. But often it is obvious.
6. sometimes About half the articles that are nominated early are clearly impossible, & we might aswell get rid of them early. Let's start with one day, as a delay and see if it makes any difference. DGG (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• My thoughts... to have AfD's actually reviewed before they being allowed to be posted.. much like DYKs. Schmidt, 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good plan! But who would review them? I can't see a better way of choosing people than just letting anyone comment, and evaluating their comments based on the strength of the argument and the standing of the person in the community. We could solicit such comments on a public noticeboard, with an inobtrusive tag to let people know to comment. Five days should be long enough. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought the point of submitting an article to AfD was for a review. Speaking as someone who has nominated articles for deletion, the last few times I was left with a vague feeling that I could have offered any reasoning for nominating an article -- & it would have gathered enough votes for deletion. I would have felt a lot more confident that I had correctly selected an article that was appropriate for deletion had at least one person written -- instead of "Agree per nominator" -- something along the lines of "I've reviewed the nominator's arguments, checked his facts, & agree with his nomination." (And apologies for ranting, rather than making an on-topic comment.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. ) Yes, any nominator who does not exercise due diligence before submitting an AfD is just wasting everybody's time. Telling people what appropriate searches (SCOPUS, PubMed, index of peers) they performed and what criterion or criteria they are using (WP:ORG, WP:PROF) reduces duplication of effort. If a nominator misses something that is obvious to someone more familiar with the topic area, the absence in the disclosure statement will be glaring and the discussion can be swiftly brought to an amicable close. On a project like this, social reinforcement is probably the best course.
2. ) Yes, this is just common courtesy. Of course, everyone participating in the discussion is honor-bound to read the article, but it is convenient to fellow editors scanning the AfD lists. If someone fails to follow this social norm, I see no problem with adding a brief neutral comment immediately under the nomination statement and informing them that you did so. We have a number of deletion-sorting projects, but many nominators seem unaware of them. Something to make deletion discussion sorting easier and more intuitive would be nice - would it be anti-WP to replace manual text entry with a scripted form with checkboxen, labeled text entry fields, and a reminder to search for sources?
3. ) No, the backlogs on this project are impressive enough as it is. We have to trust closers and DRV participants to recognize a reasonable consensus. DGG's suggestion of extending to seven days might be nice - a number of editors are active primarily over the weekend.
4. ) Kinda, lazy contributions receive little weight, so this behavior is self-defeating.
5. ) Sometimes - significant new sources tend to be obvious to closers, subsequent participants, and DRVers (delete x7, title should be XY, not XZ, keep x2, HEY - close as keep). A stream of hey, I found this forum post, go !vote again or your opinion will be disregarded messages would get old after about one.
6. ) Userfy the reasonable ones - most articles on Misplaced Pages get very few pageviews, and expecting "the wisdom of the crowds" just to show up is fanciful at best. Still, placing a speedy tag just because an editor went to dinner between saves can be jarring.

So, due diligence as a socially-enforcable standard is good, and the back end of this project runs entirely on social power. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Renew

I renew this discussion in the light of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. I think especially point four about the look and length of the actual !vote would have prevented JB to successful manipulate AfDs for at least four years without notice. It is easy to mass !vote like "delete, non-notable, trivial coverage" or even "delete per..." without being suspected. It would be far more difficult to !vote in a more original (and longer) way, reflecting the actual article and reasons for the !vote, without bearing any significant resemblance in style, thus making it harder to manipulate. At least something has to change after this most disturbing case. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to make an alert?

I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYeller 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablo_hablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYeller 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article

Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:

• Before creating an article, please read Misplaced Pages:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.

Some editors here mentioned a really good idea, to add one sentence which encourages editors to create a userfied article first.

Userfication works like this, instead of making: ham sandwhich band a new editor would make user:ikip/ham sandwhich band.

I was wondering if anyone had suggestions on how this can be worded. And do you support this idea? Ikip (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea; I think it's a great way to channel newbie enthusiasm into a place that won't get either overwritten, or jumped on too fast. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to make a this a proposal at the village pump—indeed, I still am—but I'm still trying to think through some issues. My main concern is that we don't want editors to waste effort building new articles in user space which then get promptly deleted when they are moved to article space. Drafting in user space doesn't help if the new article's subject matter is already covered in an existing article, or if the subject genuinely isn't notable enough. Won't we need some sort of support system (e.g. my outline below) on top of the basic idea? Feedback would be very helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

New article support

In a nutshell: help inexperienced editors to develop new articles with acceptable quality and notability, by (a) creating articles in user space by default, where they can be polished without time pressure, and (b) giving advice and support tailored to avoid the main causes of article failure. Possible elements include:

• General injunction (with explanation) not to create pages about yourself, your company, your friends or your band, pages that advertise, personal essays etc.
• Advice on searching to see whether the subject is already covered, and help on creating a redirect if appropriate.
• Easy access to notability advice for this category of subject matter: navigating the whole of GNG and SNG is a bit overwhelming for an inexperienced editor.
• Ditto for the basics of reliable sources and how to use them without duplicating copyright material.
• Hints, like "find your first two references before you start writing", "copy the structure of a similar article" (maybe that could be automated for some popular categories?), etc.

Technical features might include:

• Easy way(s) for editors to find their draft articles, e.g. "My drafts" tab or link.
• Drafts in user space being tagged {{NOINDEX}} automatically.
• Technique for telling new page patrollers and other potentially helpful editors whether to examine user space drafts.
• Possible need for cleaning up abandoned drafts by inactive user accounts.

As you can see, this is going in the direction of a guided workflow ("wizard")—going beyond normal[REDACTED] editing. It might work best if it was category-specific, e.g. there'd be one version for films, others for bands, albums, performers, MMORPG clans, etc. Each wizard would contain embedded best practice for structure, subject-specific notability, categories, advice on known reliable/unreliable sources, and a pre-flight checklist before moving the page into article space. Right now, I'm a little lost trying to work out how much of the support system is essential and how much is feature creep. The question is whether the editors we are trying to attract and retain (i.e. reasonably well-educated good faith contributors) actually need this level of support. - Pointillist (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, it's very-late/very-early for me right now. We've tried to address some of this at WP:YFA. There's also a nascent "create article" script but I can't find it right now. And I just recently posted to VPT and got some good details on how to get a name and create a uspace subpage. I'll check it more tomorrow. Warning though - that's a whole lot of technical details which are difficult enough as they are. Combine that with the newer users' tendency to not read everything, it will always be a problem. People are generally goal-oriented (as opposed to rule-oriented), if your flow doesn't suit them, they will surge over the banks. Franamax (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another passing comment, and supplementary qquestion - as many, many new articles by new users are copyright violations or attack pages, encouraging new users to create articles in userspace would therefore mean there would be more copyvios and attacks in userspace. Would this not create patrol problems? Currently when monitoring recent changes I tend to ignore userspace. pablo_hablo. 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really glad there is positive feedback about this idea, since 76.5% of articles put up for deletion were created by editors who had 350 contributions or less, this seems like a problem.

I moved the discussion to refactored out. which is the talk page for the text every editor sees above a brand new article. I encourage everyone here to lend support to this proposal. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that most deletions (or deletion debates) are about articles from relatively new editors is supposed to be a problem. It would be really amazing if most deletions were about articles from experienced editors, since these probably know better the do's and don'ts. I have no problems obviously with trying to help new editors write better articles (and find more suitable subjects), but the repeated suggestion that the fact that most deletions are for articles by newbies is somehow a problem is bizarre. Fram (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really there are three strands here:

• The notice that encourages contributors to create new articles in user space.
• The policies for draft articles in user space, e.g. do they get patrolled, are they indexed by search engines, is copyvio a concern, etc?
• Technology to help get articles right, e.g. breaking WP:YFA into bite-sized chunks like a wizard/checklist.

Ikip is re-starting the first strand on (struck) Where should we discuss the other two? - Pointillist (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would bring up policies for draft articles in user space in WP:VPP, asking where to ask.

The WP:Your First Article question can be asked on the talk page, and also on WP:VPT. Ikip (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Followup: The new article wizard is at (who woulda thunk? :) WP:Article wizard. User:Mr.Z-man created it and from the looks of it, it hasn't been worked on for a long time. The (long) discussion leading up to the creation of WP:YFA can be found here and in the following section. A section at VP (technical) discusses how to create a user sub-page. I certainly would like to see a process where new users had an easy way to create their own subpage rather than crash onto the rock of deletionism. However noindexing, copyvios and content proliferation are all serious concerns. Franamax (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like copyvio in user space might be the first major hurdle. What's the right place to discuss that? - Pointillist (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see this getting some attention as I had given Pointilist a brilliant idea barnstar when this concept came up in a discussion on another matter.

1. First let's see if there is some way to have it only pop up for new user accounts and/or accounts with a small number of initial edits, with an option that it can be bypassed in those cases where the account is one belonging to an established editor who has opened a new account.
2. It should be then obviously written in a very simple manner so as to not confuse newcomers, unlike most of guideline and policy. We all know how confusing it can be for even seasoned editors.
3. The warnings about copyvio should be repeated politely several times, as well as stressing the importance of decent sources... with a simple explanation that blogs and personal websites are not suitable except in vey specialized cases.
4. It could include a link to members of welcoming committee or ARS and include a very encouraging note to seek input and advice before sending to mainspace. with our respects and apologies... We're here to help.
5. And a very pointed warning that sending something to mainspace before it is ready will likely result in deletion...

We're a volunteer organization, and I do not think there will be a lack of editors willing to offer advice. Count me among the names heading that list! Schmidt, 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean to sit on that nice barnstar for ever (!), and I 100% agree that this should be encouraging and very simple to use (that's why I tend towards category-specific wizards). However, I'd like our proposal to be bullet-proof before we send it into battle, and it looks like copyvio is a big issue for some people.

Given that one of the main advantages of userfication is that articles get enough time to discard their early problems, I'd like to avoid policing for copyvio in user space. IMO where a user space page is marked {{NOINDEX}} with some sort of {{Construction}} notice, a reasonable amount of copyright material should be permitted under the usual academic terms "for private research and comment". The contributor would then have time to rework the concepts into non-copyvio form (I don't know whether CorenBot would get involved at this stage). What do you think? Where should this aspect get discussed further? - Pointillist (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It WAS a brilliant idea. And is copyvio in userspace/construction already being patrolled? WIki encourages the use of userpace to work out just such problems. All we need let new editors understand that the waters are deeper than they think and the should not wade in without their floaties. If an established editor messes up... well, he/she should know better. But as there are already processes in place to assist newcomers, all we need do is make it less confusing and more (new)user friendly. Schmidt, 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I refactored out the link to the other page, and removed my proposal on the other page. I don't think we are ready yet to present this to the larger community. Ikip (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I would tend to disagree on the "private research" bit for copyvios. For one thing, private can be much more easily done on your own computer, for another because mirror sites won't necessarily respect the noindex tag in the same way search engines do. Mostly because the end result will likely be copyvios sitting forever in uspace and because we just plain have to eliminate copyvio. This was recently discussed at WT:NPP (here) and the best suggestion for copyvio seemed to be immediate blanking of the copyvio part with an appropriate message. The text would still be available in history but not shown in public display. As far as finding copyvios, Coren would be able to confirm whether CSB scans uspace and how it responds. Putting the big black copyvio notice onto uspace pages would probably not be too friendly, but maybe Coren could work out a way to blank the text?

For wider discussion on the issue, I'd suggest WT:C and WT:NPP.

As far as who sees the wizard, one solution I could think of is to have it as a gadget in Preferences. Newly registered users would have it enabled by default and it would stay on until they figured out how to turn things off in their preferences - and by then they've probably gained some clue, right? The MediaWiki software would need to check the pref and instead of going to the URL with "&edit&redlink=1" it would use "&edit&redlink=2", which would invoke the wizard. This is something a dev would have to do of course, perhaps Werdna would be interested. Franamax (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new addition to new articles

Pointillist had a good idea for the userfication noticfication, which I will move here.

1 to 3 is the original, which everyone sees when they create a new article.

4 is the new section:

The biggest priority is to make the new userefication section as short and concise as possible.

The beauty of this new sentence is: ], which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, have you tested this with a blank page? I'm not sure REVISIONUSER will be magical when no revision has yet been made. I switched it over to Special:MyPage for now, 'til you can confirm it works. Franamax (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: ] good idea, I didn't know that was possible, the only problem with ] is it creates an extra step, the editor has to then press "create this page". Ikip (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It works. Try any page, like this one, djaklshgkjshaj then put in {{REVISIONUSER}} It also works for previously deleted articles, like Obama effect. Remember to only click show preview. Ikip (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MyPage could maybe be made to work by adding &edit&redlink=xx&preload=yy. xx would be 1 for now, 2 when the wizard gets going. yy would be for use when userfying an existing article and for new articles would preload a preamble including noindex and the underconstruction template.

Your way of using a magicword is simpler though, if it will work in the editnotice. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wonderful, you are quite a genius. Anyway to tighten and shorten the text even more? Ikip (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful... the over-worked and quite dedicated Franamax does not recieve as much praise as he rightly deserves for his tireless efforts to improve wikipedia... else he'd be constantly running out to buy larger sized hats... and that would get expensive... (grin) Schmidt, 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, MQS you have burst my bubble. I truly took that as a compliment - now I see how it could be interpreted differently. lol. :) Perhaps the fact that I have linked several other places where this has been discussed has caused some resentment? Or someone new showing up casting ideas among the regulars? Dunno. Anyway, topic of longstanding interest to me, I only came back here to consider the best text - but we do need the right technical backing so new editors have a "short path" to what they want to accomplish. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Has this proposal died or just stalled? Or has it progressed somewhere without a link to it here?

In any case I'd suggest adjusting the original points to introduce the idea like this:

Mark Hurd (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no bad idea to encourage users to work up articles in userspace until they are ready to be pushed out of the nest. However … A lot of articles that are rightfully speedy-deleted are unsourced/negative BLPs or copyright violations. A lot of these are created by new or inexperienced users. Such pages would, I understand, still be eligible for deletion even in userspace, therefore userspace would have to be patrolled more rigorously - many recent changes/new pages patrollers currently ignore, or pay less attention to, userspace. pablo_hablo. 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Topic vs content

The lead section of the project page seems to be confused about whether you are rescuing topics or content. I'm all for preserving valuble content if there is some, but if an article consists entirely of unusable content, as post literacy did, even if you show up and write a whole new article, you haven't really "rescued" anything. Nerfari (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is to rescue content that should be saved and there are many routes including merging. IMHO, article rewrites serve our readers by rescuing them from bad information or poorly written content. They seek information and we work to ensure they can find it. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are articles currently consisting of unusable content that can be rapidly improved by substituting better versions of the content with sources. This falls within the group, because it can be seen as being better versions of the material. If an article can not be improved, or its on a topic that is hopelessly non-notable, it should not be listed here--we need to rescue the rescuable. But opinions will often differ on whether something can be rescued--I have sometimes managed to improve quite unlikely articles to keeps, and so have other people here. Even apparently hopeless gamecruft might turn out to have been the subject of sourced reliable discussions by secondary sources. You can't tell till you look. DGG (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like I should be nominating some things for deletion and listing them for rescue at the same time. Nerfari (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just list them for Rescue and get the problems fixed and bypass the whole AfD thing?!?! Radiopathy (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because if you are going to tag articles for rescue which are not on AfD, the tags will have to go to the talk page of the article, not the article itself. Project tags are never placed on the article itself, but an exception was allowed for the ARS because it was only for the time of the AfD anyway(one way or the other). Other reasons not to do this is that we already have tons of tags for problems witrh articles (notability, cleanup, expert, unsourced, wikify, expand), all with very, very considerable backlogs. Finally, now there are only a handful (some tens) of articles tagged, which makes a focused rescue effort feasible. Having hundreds or thousands of articles tagged for rescue would mean that the few AfD's inbetween would be swamped, and would probably not get any attention before the AfD was over. Fram (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nerfari, how would you rewrite the introduction? please rewrite it here, and we can discuss it. I think we can all understand your concerns better, if you had a feasible alternative, which we could all adapt.Ikip (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron?

Template:RFCpolicy

Should templates be within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron? In particular, should the {{rescue}} tag be applied to templates currently at templates for deletion?

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Templates are simply a different form of content and ARS can certainly offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s - an area that is generally less busy and contentious than AfD - I see little harm in getting more eyes on TfD discussions. (Note: I've had to re-edit this statement due to the RFC being changed after posting.) Templates are well within the spirit of what ARS does, that our name doesn't state Article and Template Rescue Squad is rather silly. We work to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected and deleted. ARS members look to solve problems and serve our readers, templates often need rescuing as much as articles do. TfD, generally, concerns more experienced editors so I see little downside to ARS being involved in this manner for now. -- Banjeboi 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is soliciting comments directly to a deletion discussion from a project that exists to prevent the deletion of articles appropriate? This project was never "getting more eyes on discussions." In fact, "The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes. ARS ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing" not by selectively notifying a group which had a major recruitment drive based on having an "inclusionist" userbox on your userpage. Even if good faith is intended, the damage has been done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Benjoboi, "which is technically able to be used on TfDs": What is that supposed to mean? Whether it is "technically able" or not isutterly irrelevant, I can add template:BLPunsourced to an article about a plant species, but that has no further importance. Please try to keep the question focused and don't add unrelated stuff.
• Furthermore: do you mean all templates or only content templates? It makes no difference to my opinion, but it may influence other people one way or the other.
• I would prefer also if everything beyond AfD's was included somehow in this RfC, so that we don't have to discuss categories, mergers, redirects, ... all separately. In general: is the ARS only intended for articles which are up for deletion through AfD, or does it have a wider scope, and if so, howwide should it be?
• My personal opinion on that question is that the ARS should only be for articles on AfD, as it is basically intended to rescue articles (hence the name) through a combined effort at sourcing and major cleaning, not through a combined effort at voting keep, which would be the intended effect on most other deletion discussions (and which is evidenced by the canvassing for mergers and templates which has happened already). A template (or a category or a redirect) is not content, but a way of presenting content, which is completely different and should not be grouped under this rescue project. Fram (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Note the distinction between "improv articles flagged for rescue by adding sources and otherwise cleaning them up" and "offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". One is a call for article improvement. The other is a call to comment at a deletion discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on this project, the {{rescue}} tag, and the work of the project members here is painfully apparent. I'm unclear why you choose to insert yourself continuously in a project you seem so at odds with. In any case this isn't part 2, 3 or 4 in an effort to characterize all editors here as inclusionists. It's to stop the edit-warring regarding templates being within the scope of ARS. How the project page is reworked to reflect that articles and other content worth rescuing would have to be worked out just as we've worked out every other concern in the past. This RfC concerns scope not re-accussing an entire project of canvassing, inclusionism, etc concerns which have been addressed and dismissed every time. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This RfC concerns scope not your opinion of Mr. In Black's opinions. pablo_hablo. 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Because I like the idea of improving on AFD to prevent them from being deleted. The idea of a "come and comment on deletion discussions to save things from deletion" is what I'm not so hot on. When you outright say that, I have a major problem. Characterizing that as a problem limited to me is a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • How do you propose this project clean up non-article content in response to qualms raised in deletion discussions? Almost all tools at XfD are at risk of deletion because they are ill-conceived or abandoned, not incomplete. (Also, bear in mind my comments are addressing your call for members of this project to "offer help on Templates for deletion (TfD)s". That's advocating the same kind of canvassing I've been criticizing all along, and I'm only repeating myself because the canvassing hasn't stopped.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
          • < boggles > I think your characterizing my posting a link to a TfD discussion as canvassing is wholly innapropriate and a leaping pile of bad faith. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe I have to spell that out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; i think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
            • "How dare you, sir!" isn't an argument. Yes, everyone knows all you want is to help the encyclopedia. Understand that you don't necessarily have a monopoly on it, and that I can ascribe to you all the good faith in the world and still have a problem with how you try to help the encyclopedia.
              Anyway. Noise aside. ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping. I don't want to see that branding turned into "Please keep this template I think we should keep." Instead, I think the template and associated tools are only for content that needs revamping/rewriting/cleanup in order to be saved. I'm not strictly opposed to {{rescue}} on templates per se, but it needs to be clear, {{rescue}} needs to be "Please clean this up in order to clearly show its value" not "Please keep this, I think it helps the encyclopedia." If you want to say "Please keep" we have XfD discussions for that. If you want to have more people come and back you up and say "Please keep", please don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I am unhappy with a proposal that amount to the abuse of the audience of 200+ members. I'm not suggesting malfeasance on the part of the group, but that it's inappropriate to solicit that group to skew a debate with the force of their presence, by soliciting their input directly to debate.
              You suggested that this project should come and comment on selected TFD discussions. Solicitation from a group with an avowed stance (in this case, the prevention of deletion of content) is harmful. What benefit do we gain by making this project noticeboard for template deletion discussions when we have that noticeboard already? And before attacking the assertion that the project has an avowed stance, note that there are even a link to a WSJ article describing this project as stridently opposed to deletion; ARS is notably inclusionist! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Your, IMHO, shrillish "concern" has been soundly rejected every time this project has been targeted with these generalized attacks and yes, this RfC is all about your edit-warring. As an admin you should be alarmed by your own behaviour. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
                • You attacked me instead of answering my question. Again. We have a noticeboard for templates for deletion. How do we benefit by having another? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • To me the answer to that seems apparent, we have a noticeboard for AfDs as well yet hundreds of editors have found ARS to be helpful in recognizing content that shouldn't be deleted or otherwise can be used for our readers' benefit. Likewise ARS can be helpful on TfD discussions, identifying issues, proposing solutions and offering more eyes on a deletion discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • Why can't ARS members simply watch TFD, like all editors? Why is their input so valuable it needs to be solicited directly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Outdent. Well I guess I can answer that with my habits as an example. I don't watch AfD at all, if an AfD is brought to my attemtion here or one of the wikiproject talkpages I watch ... then I have a look. Same with all other XfDs, I simply don't pay any attention to them at all. My hopes are that editors who are experienced in those areas will be able to raise the alert if they feel something is being deleted in error. Obviously it would be ideal if nothing was ever created or deleted in error but that's unlikely to happen so we work with the systems we have - not the ones we hope for. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That's the problem, though. You're wanting to make this the "Come save this from deletion" noticeboard, and that's exactly what I've been trying to stop it from becoming and exactly what people have been worrying that it would become. This is an article improvement noticeboard, not a save this from deletion noticeboard. The important part of "improving articles so they aren't deleted" is "improving articles." When yandman talks about coopting this board, or I talk about canvassing, this is what I mean. It's a good faith effort, but it's harmful to consensus building. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • You may have us mistaken with all other clean-up projects. We only work on items marked for deletion. We specialize in making quick assessments and improvements including recommending if something likely should be merged, renamed, reworked, deleted, etc. And your continued assertions/accusations mischaracterizing us all as inclusionists etc. are only serving to prevent the project from moving forward to building tools to help improve those very items we're here to do. Sorry, I see your profound, unsubstantiated and repeated criticism as unproductive and toxic. You quote "improving articles so they aren't deleted", where is that from? We "ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing". You may want to also note we don't punish people for tagging items that really should be deleted, we may try to work with them so the do better editing in the future but many items that are simply not rescuable are tagged and, yes, get deleted. We help as we can. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • This project only works on items marked for deletion. It does not work on deletion discussions, and you've called for people to come and get involved in template deletion discussions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, you really are pushing the absurd here. Do you honestly think or have any evidence that ARS restricts its members from taking part in the AfD discussion, in any way? For that matter we don't tell people how to vote or even vote. We do instruct to read the AfD to know what the issues stated are, accurate or not. So no, you're mistaken on this one as well, we certainly do take part in the AfD as well as look to improving the article if appropriate and possible. There's no logical reason this wouldn't carry over to templates as well - the skills are just less used by most Wikipedians. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • It's not absurd, it's the distinction that allows this project to exist. If this project exists to clean up content up for deletion, that's good and should be encouraged. The project being a board for soliciting people to come to deletion discussions, that's a problem. That's the problem. And the fact that you haven't yet suggested what the project would do for templates, let alone other non-article content, and talked about "getting more input at TFD discussions", seems to say that you're wanting to solicit people to come to deletion discussions. Selectively soliciting people to deletion discussions is the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Well you are indeed mistaken as the items primarily addressed by this project are ones at deletion so it's disingenuous to claim surprise or object that memebers take part in deletion discussion. It's our primary work, we try to understand the issues that brought content to XfD and offer our perspective and often talents to fixing problems or suggesting what is best for Misplaced Pages. And despite your assertions I have already explained how we would help at TfD a few times in this RfC. I'm sorry you're assuming something else is at play. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Templates, categories, images, sound files and anyting that is not an article are outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. The point of the squadron is to collaboratively source and improve articles listed on Afd. There is no reason, however, why there shouldn't be a "Template Improvement Team" to go with ARS. pablo_hablo. 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's all content though, we don't compartmentalize our content that only images go in one pile and only templates are here. It's all information, visual, auditory etc and it works together to communication the vast sum of human knowledge to each other, freely. Templates are simply a different way to organize content. And a "Template Improvement Team" would likely be a sub-team of ARS using ... the {{rescue}} tag with links helpful to template issues. -- Banjeboi 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it's not content, it's presentation. An article has content, a template (anda category and so on) has no content but is a method of presenting it (there's a reason that they are called "navigation" templates). When you delete e.g. the NY representatives template, no content is lost, only a method of navigating. Fram (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Fram has a good point. We're supposed to be saving things (articles, templates, pics, etc) from deletion when there's a reason not to (i.e. more references are needed and out there). If we're adding the {{rescue}} template when the only thing that can be done is vote in the TfD, then there's a problem. But if the template is broken (for example) and it can be fixed, then adding the {{rescue}} tag makes sense. OlYeller 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually templates are content. A list of kinds of Italian bread is standardized in {{Italian bread}} and posted to relevant articles. At Tfd the core issues tend to be, is this needed, should it be merged, renamed etc. These are quite similar to AfD discussions. Sourcing is rarely an issue but the rest of those issues seem relevant. I was involved in a TfD regarding a group of "fringe" articles - was the template applying undue weight to those theories - so the core issues and the spirit are nearly idecticle. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I tend to be a deletionist but I also believe in saving SAVABLE articles from deletion even when they're in AfD or CSD. Being a deletionist and wanting to save articles aren't mutually exclusive. The line on what's "savable" is drawn by each member. Saying that everyone in a group is the same is about as close to bigoted as you can get and I'm personally sick of being personally attacked by an administrator because of the alleged actions of others. That being said, I don't see ARS as being just for articles. I think the {{rescue}} tag can be used for anything on[REDACTED] that may be in danger of being deleted when a measurable amount of work can be done to keep it from being deleted. OlYeller 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  That a group can be composed of a majority does not deny that a minority exists. My problem is with "Come comment on this discussion" and less "OMG INCLUSIONIST CABAL" because we already have a general-purpose "come comment on this discussion" noticeboard for deletion discussions. This is a "come fix these articles" noticeboard, and is for articles that need to be fixed; turning it into "come comment on this discussion" will rapidly turn it into "Partisan Battleground Project". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  This is the first time I've read a response from you on this page that I wasn't offended. If it makes any difference, if people are doing that, I ignore it to the point where I can't remember that even happening. As to not offend others and assume good faith of the "minority", please address specific people when they do something like that. Why am I having to tell this to an admin? OlYeller 14:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  I am operating from the assumption that advertising a discussion to an audience which chiefly sympathizes with one side of that discussion is bad. It's not bad because the audience's contribution is bad; it's bad because partisan canvassing skews discussion inordinately. I don't know how I could more directly call out Banjeboi or Ikip (in reference to the last two canvassing messes) without overly personalizing things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm suggesting that you talk about it with them on there talk page as when you do it here and don't use specific names, you're calling out the entire ARS community for the actions of 2 people. OlYeller 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  That doesn't get any wider input (as amusing as the juxtaposition is, the only place for a representative mix of people with an opinion on the operation of this project is its own talk page) and it doesn't solve the problem of the canvassing directly. If it's up for a week while wider input is solicited to a talk page, then the damage is done even if the canvassing is removed later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Until this RfC was stated, by me, I had no clue you were accusing me of canvassing. You never stated it to me, that I know of, and your edit summaries were, IMHO, shrill. I'll agree again with OlYeller21 that canvassing issues need to be addressed on a user level, and admins should be well aware of that. You've used the canvassing board before so maybe that would be a better alternative to keep this wikiproject focussed on our work rather than your perception of some editors actions. -- Banjeboi 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Again, this RfC concerns scope not accusations of canvassing. -- Banjeboi 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  I see your proposal as "Should this project canvass its members to participate in TFD discussions?" Also, you just repeated the same argument twice in one discussion, which is what that WP:ATA spinoff is talking about, whereas I've been repeating the same argument over many different related discussions. But we've both been articulating new parts of our own positions and gaining at least some light in the discussion, so it's not as though either of us is doing anything useless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Oy vey, sadly I see you've been accusing me of canvassing for several hours now. I'll echo OlYeller21's concern that I can't believe we have to spell this out to an admin. We don't tell people how to vote we ask them to participate in the discussion - you should know better, there is a big difference. Maybe re-read WP:Canvassing. -- Banjeboi 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Why here? (And please, the "I can't believe this, you should know better" is very tiresome.)- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Your blanket statement disparaging a group of 200+ members is wrong. There, is that more clear? You're an admin but your poor behaviour belies that. Clear enough? Admins are expected to act a bit more civil, follow policies at least a little better. I hope this explains why your edit-warring accross this project and related discussion is unwelcome, uncivil and unbecoming and admin. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Response above, this is sprawling out of control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • My patience with your concerns is rather run out at this point. You seem to be ready to argue and threaten, edit-war and accuse then register another concern when your actions have generated "sprawl". I find that disingenuous at best. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

    Um. Okay. I moved my comment above because I thought this back-and-forth was starting to dominate the page. But go go gadget accusations! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Commment I'm with OlYeller21, even though I'm probably a mergeist, if you have to nail me down. ARS exists to rescue stuff, primarily articles, and people who want to help by improving things facing deletion are welcome here. If someone wants to post notices in the hopes of canvassing for keep !votes, that's their problem, and if people read this page looking for places to cast keep !votes, that's their problem. I've had the experience of posting an article for rescue and Benjiboi has shown up and strenuously argued that it be deleted. I know I've looked at articles tagged for rescue, and either shaken my head and walked away (not wanting to pile on in an obviously appropriate deletion trend) or argued for deletion or merge. So I don't care if people put up TfD, IfD, or the like for rescue--If I know or strongly suspect that the target is notable, I'll use the resources (ProQuest, EBSCOhost) and knowledge (CITET, etc.) at my disposal to fix it. I personally don't see how I can help with those other non-article deletion spaces, but I also don't see the traffic in such non-AfD XfD's to be high enough to be a distraction to the rest of the ARS. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, people know me as a strong inclusionist, but even I don't blindly argue to keep every rescue templated article. Sincerely, --A Nobody 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe the comment you linked there speaks more to my argument than Banjeboi's. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• By and large, templates are only deleted if they are a) redundant, b) unused and totally neglected or c) obviously not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. The one general exception to this is navboxes, and frankly navbox TfDs do not need more input from the more fringe elements of this WikiProject, for the reasons intimated by aMiB. I don't see any positive impact to involving ARS in template discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Characterizing any editors as fringe isn't civil. If you have an issue with a particular editor(s) take it to them directly please. And your assertion that having more eyes on a TfD not likely to have any positive impact, seems counter to the spirit of consensus. We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"We want more participation so we are more likely to make the right decision"... I don't believe I am the only one who is deeply disturbed by statements such as this. The reason ARS has survived various formal (MFD) and informal (ANI) deletion discussions is that it has always been claimed that it was about editing articles where lack of content/structure/sources threatened deletion, not block-participating in XfDs. And I think that the vast majority of editors in this project follow that philosophy. You clearly have another opinion, and I'm sorry, but an important project such as this one cannot be hijacked by a handful of editors who want it to take another direction. yandman 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you have implied meaning to a statement that isn't there. The right decision isn't to keep or delete but what is best for Misplaced Pages. Consensus discussion is to involve better judgement by a group to make the best decision possible - any idea why we wouldn't want more participation in discussions that affect us all? As an aside this RfC is to help us make the right or best decision as well. Please AGF that the exact same thing I've been doing here all along is working to improve Misplaced Pages. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is indeed the best thing. Which is why we have a page called WP:AFD on which all the deletion discussion are listed. "better judgement by a group" is exactly what we don't want. We don't want a group to decide they are making the best judgement by block-voting in XfDs. We don't want a group that has been allowed to use an official-looking articlespace template suddenly decide that they don't want to play by the rules that were set down. When did this project abandon the whole "stick to improving the articles, let others notice our work and participate in the discussion" ethos? Since this project was hijacked (and I choose my words carefully, the attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism being the most blatant example), that philosophy has pretty much evaporated. yandman 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And consensus is what ARS has always advocated. Accusations of block voting are simply false and no credible evidence has been shown to sustain that blanket bad-faith accusations. You can stop now. And that attempts to merge this page with WP:Inclusionism was stopped by me at ANI. Every other concern about inclusionism blah blah blah has also been addressed. ARS has been continuously supported by the community, despite generalized and unsubstantiated accusations. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• As a very general comment, the more light we get on the various non-AfD XfDs the better, and what we need to do is figure out how to encourage it, not worry about whether it falls into any particular remit. TfD in the past has been really problematic, because most of it is very uninteresting, but on occasion something is proposed where the deletion actually means changing or editing a Misplaced Pages project of procedure. Any such discussions of importance should be taken elsewhere, like the VP, but they do show up at TfD -- and MfD. There are lots of ways to delete material that avoid the publicity of AfD; this Project has a wider role than just being an AfD talk page, or thinking its title means a prohibition against doing whatever is relevant and permissible and acceptable to the community. DGG (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, we should be able to be called to attempt to rescue anything under an XfD process (i.e. not PROD, CSD or other non-final discussions). If this means we must change the name of the project to just Rescue Squadron, just to avoid spurious arguments, so be it. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• What are the rescue template actually doing on a template? Essentially all TfD debates focus on usefulness and/or appropriateness of a template. While there are cases where a rewording of the template can address the concerns that is raised on the deletion debate, in most cases those debates deals with the idea behind the template. As such there is nothing to rescue, either the template is appropriate, or it is not, and the only way to figure which is to reach a consensus. On such cases the template serves no purpose. Taemyr (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ARS has always worked to save content worth keeping and advise when something should likely be merged, redirected, renamed and deleted, etc. TfD just concerns content in a different format. Likely the project page would have a section added pointing to a subpage regarding TfDs with handy links; I think the main premise to get accross is that templates morph greatly over time and often become obsolete, renamed, repurposed, etc while articles once established generally just grow. The {{rescue}} template would likely be tweaked to display template-appropriate content and our ARSBot tweaked to display the correct links for our current list subpage. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The point is that the rescue template exists in order to recruit people into improving the content under discussion. For templates at TfD it's difficult to see how that purpose can be served. Taemyr (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That is only an aspect of what we do. We also offer our insights on other options as well as looking at issues from our various perspectives. And templates are content there to help our readers - we can surely offer an opinion if something is fixable, useless, etc. And for basic templates we might even be able to address the issues directly by editing them. -- Banjeboi 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes or No - I'll say "yes" if this moves to an "all or nothing" sort of outcome. As has been said above, anything under the XfD process should be included. This should not only apply to AfD and TfD, but also to CfD (Category for Deletion) and even IfD (images). Otherwise, count mine as a "no". Everything under XfD = "yes". Articles and templates ONLY = "no". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 09:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That would likely be a yes as the logical conclusion would be that other XfD would also be allowed. Templates just happenned to be at the heart of the edit-warring so I decided wider community input would help show a consensus of how to proceed. Personally, dealing with creating another ANI thread was not helping lift my spirits to contribute and even if one editor is blocked another could quickly pop up to further disrupt things. Better to RfC and see where the community stands. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• as a card-carrying occlusionist (i.e., someone who prefers to see issues like this get closed) I have to say: WTF??? if someone thinks a template is salvageable and useful, and wants to rescue it - let 'em rescue it. there's just no reason to be hasty about deleting a template (short of it constituting a violation of WP core principles, or being created for some kind of vandalism). Misplaced Pages has plenty of space, and a template can sit in the background, unused, while people play with it. if you're worried about it being used, wrap the whole thing in 'noinclude' tags so it can't transclude anything. what a silly debate... --Ludwigs2 04:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I am one who has called the ARS to help me attempt to rescue two templates. It looks like Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6‎#Template:NYRepresentatives is going to be unsuccessful as was the first attempt. Nonetheless, I think ARS should be invovled in rescue attempts of any form of content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think the ARS should be disbanded entirely, as an equivalent organization designed to rally deletionists to an article in support of its removal would be very quickly MFDed. However, in the knowledge that that won't happen, I believe templates should be out of scope of the ARS. What does the A stand for? Stifle (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Stifle, what are YOU here for? If I can speak for the ARS as a whole, we're here to build an encyclopedia.' That means adding encyclopedic content and preventing the removal of encyclopedic content, most often through fixing bad/marginal articles on appropriately encyclopedic topics. ARS is not inclusionist, although ARS attracts inclusionists, and good faith editors can differ over the definition of "appropriately encyclopedic topics" without undermining the encyclopedia-building process. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You're engaging in codology if you expect me to believe that ARS is not an inclusionist project designed to canvass editors to keep articles that aren't always approaching notability. You're also the only project which has managed to get license to leave your project tag on an article page, rather than a talk page like all the others. One of the main methods of keeping an encyclopedia high-quality is the removal of inappropriate content, and the ARS hampers that. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The community disagrees with your blanket assertions and bad faith accusations that you feel it's OK to spread your antagonistic views shows a lack of civility toward fellow editors and is generally unhelpful and unwelcome. If you've nothing constructive to offer here it's likely this project is not a good match for your particular POV. There are plenty of projects out there so let me hereby encourage you to explore the wikiverse in hopes you find a more collegial envirnment for your take on things. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
        • If by "the community", you mean "Some other people and I", then yes. There is, however, room for all of us in Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I support Ben's proposal to formerly include templates. Ikip (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes The ARS may properly concern itself with any content which is threatened with removal. If this gets complicated we might introduce subdivisions like International Rescue and its specialist craft such as Thunderbird 4... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - If the content of article, template, file, picture, etc. is savable (requires some sort of maintenance like adding refs or fixing code) then yes, it should be tagged with the {{rescue}} tag. If people are that worried about symantics, change ARS to RS or WRS (Misplaced Pages Rescue Squadron). I don't think that artciles should have the {{rescue}} tag added if the articles, templates, etc. that are currently as complete as they can be. In other words, if an article has all the refs added that can be found and its notability is in question or if the template is working perfectly and can't be changed so that it's not redundant, the tag should not be added. OlYeller 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  If this is the proposal, I'm amenable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

  Just as we don't punish people tagging articles that really can't be rescued we simply would educate folks regarding the proper use regarding any other XfD. The concerns, IMHO, are a bit blunted as non-AfD discussions tend to attract more experienced editors so I don't see quite the same misapplying concern. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ya, I'm not saying that people who tag incorrectly need to be warned or reprimanded in any way, just educated. OlYeller 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  IF only this would be applied in practice, there would perhaps be less opposition and criticism. However, when a template like the NYrepresentatives is tagged and people here are canvassed to come and keep it at the TfD, this is considered perfectly acceptable by members of the ARS, even though no content changes have been proposed or suggested, and the tag and message were clearly not in line with what is the proposed scope of the ARS. So I don't believe in this proposal at all, and continue to oppose any change of scope for the ARS. Fram (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  As someone who has participated in that discussion and despite your claim, has made content suggestions, you have this one wrong. The original poster asked for help which is far from canvassing which entails not only telling people how to vote but where to do it. This was not that. Another canvassing accusation down the drain <gloop> <gloop> <gloop>. -- Banjeboi 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  "It seems to me that {{NYRepresentatives}} should be kept if the rest of Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, but it is at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives. I know you don't put rescue tags on templates, but this should be kept." How is this not "not only telling people how to vote but where to do it"? How to vote = it should be kept, where = TfD discussion. Fram (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  As I stated the original poster asked for help, they stated their opinion but never said "everyone needs to vote to keep this". You inventing conversatios which didn't happen. Most of us are adults here and know how to register our opinion on a XfD, it's rather rude to presume we would be swayed by a canvassing request or even follow it. I wouldn't say we are immune to the concept but certainly haven't seen this effectively employed either. If we can help, we do, if not we don't. -- Banjeboi 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  You claimed that no canvassing had happened, which is patently untrue. Now you claim that no one would be swayed by it, which may be true, but is a completely different discussion. I did not invent any conversation, I quoted it. Fram (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. The issue remains the same, we don't punish an editor for misusing this or any other teplate, we work to ensur ethey dont do it again. Likewise we don't accuse an entire Wikiproject for something that one editor may or may not have done. The rest is just bickering and it seems only to show emnity against the many editors here. It's unhelpful and you can consider your concern duly noted. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

Seems there is consensus to allow templates and issues how to proceed forward have also been laid out. Can we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 01:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion. OlYeller 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "issues how to proceed forward"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD length

My proposal having been carried, the AfD length is now seven days - hopefully this wil leave time for you guys to get more involved with the articles that are tagged. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

that deserves a barnstar. Great job! Ikip (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of the {{rescue}} tag

I'm trying to see both sides of the massive argument that's been going on for the last week or so. While I think that many of the arguements are tactless, I can see what they're getting at and I think it's a valid point to discuss cvilly.

As I see it, the gripe is that the {{rescue}} tag is being added for the sole purpose of bringing ARSers of any inclusion belief to the AFD, TFD, etc. That adding the {{rescue}} tag is only to bring AFDers (who are mistakenly believed to all inclusionists) to the discussion to keep the article for unfounded reasons.

When it comes to placing the tag, the project states:

If people are adding the {{rescue}} tag for to any type of file that isn't savable by any means, then the person who added the tag needs to be addressed directly. It's not a felony to do this as it's a mistaken belief of what the tag is supposed to be used for. Even so, the damage done should be caught by an administrator in the deletion discussion (see next paragraph).

As for the alleged damage done (stacking "votes" in a deletion discussion), administrators should not simply be counting the votes in the discussion and making the decision accordingly. Each person commenting on the deletion discussion should be backing up their opinion with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If articles are being kept because 10 people only say, "Keep because it's notable," then the problem is with administrators.

In my opinion, the issue brought up lately is not with all of ARS and won't be solved just in a discussion with ARS members. The alleged problems are with ARSers adding a the {{rescue}} tag mistakenly, administrators counting votes in deletion discussions, and possibly policies and guidelines being too loose for interpretation.

If you agree with all or just one of those thoughts, then I don't see how having the discussion here will help those concerns. If the problem is with a person misusing the tag, take it up with them personally,. If the problem is admins misunderstanding the deletion discussion process, take it up with them personally. If the problem is a policy or guideline not being too loose for interpretation, please bring up your concern on the respective guideline or policy. OlYeller 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• You've fallen into the belief-hole. The {{rescue}} tag is being used to canvass inclusionists to keep unencyclopedic articles, no matter how strenuously you deny it. If I had time, I'd commission a study of how AFDs change after the tag hits the article. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's is a shame you only have time to spread the accusation then presnt any compelling evidence. -- Banjeboi 10:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That this squadron has an overrepresentation of self-declared inclusionists is due to the targeted recruiting of members from that category. And that it is used for canvassing has been shown above for the template, and can also be seen in things like Misplaced Pages talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescue Dan Miller (sportscaster) please, which instead of focussing on article improvement (help, it needs sources! or soemthing similar), solely focuses on the votecount. While obviously not all people here are inclined to blindly vote keep on anything that is tagged for rescue, the reality is that the board is used or perceived by many editors as an easy venue for gathering keeps. Fram (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, accusations are unhelpful and only serve to cause drama here. If you have an actual case to present maybe any admin board would be more appropriate. The posts here really need to remain free of drama so we can get back to the rescue work. If you don't want to help that is certainly within your control. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Benujiboi, it is you who are fuelling the drama. Above and here, you first deny anything going wrong, and when then presented with evidence, change your position to claim that it isn't helpful and that it creates drama. If you had not reacted incorrectly in the first place or hadn't asked for evidence here, no further replies would have follwoed and all this presumed drama could have been avoided. Similarly, above, if you hadn't first denied that any canvassing had happened, and if you had indeed tried to correct people who mistakenly used the rescue tag, then no complaints from other editors had followed. If you don't act on the problems, don't complain when other people point out that the project you are active in has problems. Don't shoot the messenger, but act on the message. Fram (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I see lots of accusations and relatively few isolated incidents that concern individual editors. As has been stated quite a few times accross venues these should be taken up with them personally. I was accusewd of canvassing - not directly mind you so it was a surprise to me - for simply posting a link to a TfD discussion. In fairness that editor may honestly feel posting any XfD link may be canvassing but I think that would have been quickly dismissed by any other admin. That this was only done as an edit-war accompanied by rather baseless edit summaries leads a reasonable conclusion of intimidation rather than any concensus or reasonable dialog we expect from more seasoned editors and, of course, admins. This is similar to all te other accusations made here, they were poorly effected if the intent was to address someone directly, they instead were done in a public and shaming manner which adds divisiness where none is needed. I can also guarantee you that if compelling evidence is shown that ARS is violating policies or any of our templates and pages are problematic, we fix them, just like every instance in the past. No bullying needed, just thoughtful dialogue on what the problem in seen to be and possible solutions. We work together and share the same pages, we can disagree without being disagreeable. If you feel I've caused drama myself I apologize, I'm trying to get a community consensus and move on. That I was personally accused of something was just an unfortunate chapter and I'll get over it. -- Banjeboi 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
            • If people publicly respond to canvassing attempts as if they are perfectly normal, then those same people shouldn't be surprised if such attempts are pointed out publicly as well. This does not involve "bullying", "intimidation", or "public shaming". If someone does something on page X, that can be discussed on (talk) page X: doing so is making the opinion public and giving everyone a chance to give their interpretation, instead of chastizing an editor out of public view. It is obvious that this board is repeatedly used to canvass editors, either for not-ARS related discussions or to specifically vote keep in AfD's. To discuss this each time separately with those editors is unproductive, certainly when other editors are replying here to their posts as if they are normal and welcome. DIscussing those posts here may at least get us closer to a consensus. So I'll continue to point out each canvassing or otherwise inappropriate comment made on this page here. Fram (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Perhaps you're missing the point here. If someone posts an "obvious canvassing" thread it doesn't mean ARS is the problem or that we're enabling it. If you're actually trying to help those doing the alleged canvassing you might find that a kinder approach - like with all our work on the encyclopedia - works much more effectively. A simple - "hi, you might not realize it but asking people to vote one way or another is considered WP:Canvassing and is not allowed; letting people know about a discussion and telling them how to vote there are two seperate things" - would work just fine. It doesn't have to happen here but I suppose it could. Personally I think it's much smarter to put it on their talkpage so if other editors share the concern they too can see an issue with that editor. When canvassing-like posts are presented here they do get attention but, IMHO, the same attention if they had been presented neutrally or not. People will always make mistakes but we try to correct these and do so constructively and civilly. That's a core policy and even if we disagree we need to still work with one another. -- Banjeboi 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
                • If I had seen someone from the ARS trying to correct these mistakes, I would give more value to your opinion. But the impression you gave was that our concerns were unfounded, that no canvassing had happened, and that the posts were good things. I hope that you will act in the future much like you are discussing it now, and not like you have acted in the past. As for civility: I am not the one shouting "drama", "bullying", ... in this discussion. Noting problems is not uncivil, and doing so at the same venue as where they happened is not uncivil either. And you were the oone that vehemently opposed removing offending posts, since they should get archived instead, i.e. kept in public view for as long as was needed. If you want to keep the canvassing here, then you shouldn't object to a discussion of it here either. Fram (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. You know if I was wrong I apologize. Perhaps I'm just immune to the canvassing "problem". It's not my job to fix it and no we don't have to remove it. I have the funny feeling most of here are equally immune to "save this" pleas. We do it all the time and if we can we will, if we can't we won't, pretty clear cut. Being accused of canvassing in a completely uncivil and edit-warring fashion by an admin was alarning to me. It simply shouldn't have happenned but some good has come of it. Do I agree with them that I was canvassing, hardly and I doubt anyone does. Has there been other instances, probably. Do they warrant wholesale accusations and mischaracterizing an entire Wikiproject - never. Further incidents should be handled civilly and directly to the user, that's in everyone's best interest. I'm not sure there is anything on a projectwide basis that needs to be delved into further. We have a lot of work to do so I'd like to get the focus back on that. -- Banjeboi 10:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So you won't object to such inappropriate posts being removed and dealt with privately, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to fuel this discussion any further but I think there's a possibility that you misunderstood my intentions Benjiboi. I don't think that canvassing is going on. It's possible that it's being attempted but I see no evidence that it's happening. I accused no one and spread no accusations. I think it's possible that you've gotten so defensive that you've misinterpreted my intentions but that just tells me that you're emotionally dedicated to this project. I'm sorry if you feel that way and if I somehow mislead you, I'm also sorry. Your last post has reiterated exactly what I said above. That, "incidents should be handled civilly and directly to the user" and not to the whole project. I guess if I had to sum up my intentions in a short sentence, I'd say that I was trying to accumulate those feelings into better formatted response as opposed to a single paragraph reply.OlYeller 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, either they get discussed privately with the person involved and the offending posts are removed here immediately (which was quickly reverted and objected to in the past), or they get adressed here. To leave the posts here without any comments gives the impression to the next editor who comes along that it is perfectly allright to post "please come and vote keep on X" on this page. Fram (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of interest.

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.

But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Balita Alas Singko ng Umaga

I think this is a suitable subject for rescue, as a lack of sources (and not an inherent lack of notability) threatens its deletion. PS: I've already commented, please don't add more !votes to it until these sources have been found. If we can't find any, WP:V means it'll have to go, however notable (or interesting) it may seem. yandman 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Motto

Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?

TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Misplaced Pages editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Jack Merridew 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;

Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stricken. Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:

It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)

Simple and direct are both good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.

  — Winston S. Churchill

I like that one. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:

Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what I've been considering to be our motto?

The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Luv it. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Word, I like this one. OlYeller 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYeller 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue Dan Miller (sportscaster) please

Please help me save Dan Miller (sportscaster) from afd. I really care about this article because I listen to him every week at Lions games. So far its 4 keeps to only 1 delete. Thanks TomCat4680 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

see: Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron#So ARS wants to keep everything?:

The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes

Jack Merridew 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change for ARS

I've never made a proposal for a project name change so please make changes to the format of this proposal if needed.

As there has been a discussion going on about the scope of ARS regarding what what type of file (article, template, pic, etc) the {{rescue}} tag can be used for, I propose a change to the projects name. I propose that we change the name from Article Rescue Squadron to Misplaced Pages Rescue Squadron (WRS) to something that better reflects the scope of the project. The new name will be decided if this proposal passes.OlYeller 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Change - As I've stated before, I believe that any file on Misplaced Pages that is savable and going through a deletion discussion, should be tagged with the {{rescue}} tag. OlYeller 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree, anything and everything deserves to be rescued. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe something a little broader, like "The Misplaced Pages Content Salvage Team." Radiopathy •talk• 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should change the proposal to simply propose a name change but not indicate what the name should be. OlYeller 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Second. Radiopathy •talk• 02:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Change Radiopathy •talk• 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not convinced either way as the focus of the work will likely remain articles with "other" being a much smaller percentage. I also find the above drama draining so I'll have to think more on this. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Change - Mark Hurd (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• No change, the namechange is supposed to reflect the wider scope of the ARS? How about at least waiting until the RFC is finished? This is trying to create a fait accompli, and is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Fram (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• No change, and close this poll (let's not pretend it's a discussion) as forum shopping. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How on Earth is this forum shopping? -- Banjeboi 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume that he's suggesting that I've been waiting around with a goal, hoping a conversation somewhat related to changing the name of ARS would pop up so that I could bring this proposal up. Stifle, see Forum shopping. I think you might have meant something else. OlYeller 15:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The discussion above at the section titled "RFC: should templates..." already discusses the matter of the ARS expanding. I am unclear as to why there is a second section about it. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a natural outgrowth of that--the discussion involved, in part, limitations based on the title of the ARS. Nothing forum shopping about it... especially since this is, wait for it... the same forum! Jclemens (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm Open to a good name change, but per Benjeboi articles are and should remain the primary focus--that's the encyclopedic content we're all here to create, improve, and preserve, right? Alternatively, we can adopt ALL of the proposed names and still point them all to here. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

It's been about 7 days since I started to proposal. I couldn't find a guideline that specifically states how proposals should go but I assume that 7 days from the last reply is enough time. I counted 4 changes, 2 no changes, an open-to-change, and one undecided. It also seems that it should be explicitly clarified that this project's focus should still be articles. I don't want to start another proposal myself in case I do something wrong but if someone else wants to start a discussion about it, at least 5 people are open to a change while 2 are opposed to a name change. OlYeller 04:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

help me save if you can, Culbann C.P.C

the notability of the article has come up before, below is what i done back then. A tag has been placed on Culbann C.P.C, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Finngall 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info. I've removed the speedy tag. --Finngall 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It has come up again but has been highlighted for deletion, please help me make it more notable and save it, give me ideas on how to do so. also get into the discussion on the speedy deletion page http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Culbann_C.P.C --Weeman com (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rescue tag sometimes links to wrong deletion discussion, or to none at all (redlink)

I don't mind - when I have the time - going through the list to make sure that all the tags link to the current deletion discussion. There are times when an article has been nominated for a second time that the tag picks up the link for the first deletion discussion, and on this past Saturday, I found one with a redlink that went nowhere. Is there a fix for this, or will this always have to be done manually? Radiopathy •talk• 03:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Rescue#Linking_to_other_deletion_.28Xfd.29_discussions. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been dealing with both rl and wiki drama but that was, in part some of the work I would do. As of yet we do this manually but it might be a good bot job although I've found quite a few cases where AfDs were named wrong, old ones not on talkpages, etc so it may still need ARS helpers to ensure each article's bit are formatted correctly. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive

Interesting at least for all regulars at music related AfDs. I don't want to know how many articles have been deleted just because of him and his socks. Since he was active for about four years (!), we should have an eye upon new editors at music related AfDs that bear resemblance. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 11:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Take the case to the WP:SSP if you have proof. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Why another SSP case, why more proof than two CUs yesterday? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We're going through the list of AfDs now. Any whose results would've changed without the socks will be undeleted and relisted at AfD (or DRVd). Have identified at least six so far. Black Kite 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave the courageous editor who exposed this sock a barnstar, User_talk:Paul_Erik#barnstar I suggest other article rescue squadron members do the same. Thanks for bringing this to our attention Hexacord. Ikip (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started to investigate this terrible editor:

• 8 editors in this AfD is one person: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (asked for admin to reverse AfD)
• 4 editors in this AfD are one person: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lucifer Rising (album) (already recreated)
• 4 editors in this AfD are one person: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/It's Nobody's Fault But Mine (reverted redirect)

Ikip (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• See: Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Black Kite is renominating one of the articles as we speak: List_of_R&B_musicians. Is this what Black means by "...going through the list of AfDs now"? Relisting corrupt nominations a second time? Ikip (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like he deserves a permanent block to me. Lets get started on putting those articles back up. I'm giving the exposer the top ARS barnstar. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He is permanently blocked, other editors have gotten out of this though. Ikip (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ikip - that's a very unfair comment. I am only relisting debates that were nominated by editors other than James Burns sockpuppets (so not "corrupt") and which would have been unclear / relisted without the sock votes (in other words, ones where it's pointless sending them to DRV because the result would be Relist and we'd just waste a week). Where articles were kept (or closed as no consensus), or where the sock votes made no difference, there's clearly no point in relisting them. Black Kite 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would expect that where articles were kept/no consensus but would have been deleted without the sock keep !votes, that those would be relisted too. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I doubt you'll find one. I did not find even one "keep" by a confirmed sock (A-K, TCF etc) and only one "keep" by JB from back in 2005. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep - Every sock vote on the AFDs I've examined so far has been delete, so the AfDs that ended Keep wouldn't be affected. Black Kite 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
          • The sockpuppets opined keeping at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christofascism. They failed to sway opinion from deletion, however. Instead, I helped to do that, the right way, without attempting to stuff a nonexistent ballot, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christofascism (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Interesting one. I didn't look at that one as you'd already struck it from the list. Black Kite 17:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
              • There's an object lesson in those two discussions for any Article Rescuer there if ever there was one. One doesn't rescue articles with puppetry and attempted vote stacking. It doesn't work. (That AFD discussion isn't the only one where the puppetry actually failed to achieve its goal, as you've no doubt already noticed.) One rescues articles with good content, cited sources, and policy-founded rationales. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen socks? Wow! Biggest drawer I've ever seen. How is it even possible to have that many? I'm just wondering. Did he use a laptop with WiFi and roam around changing IP numbers every time? Or did he just have 15 email addresses? TomCat4680 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fifteen? At least a couple are over 1,000 by now. Unlike them, though, this one was at sneaky enough to evade detection for four years. Black Kite 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Relistings so far

• "The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes - sent to DRV - here
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wired Desire (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Game Tour (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Lazys (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Summer EP (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow Is Today (song)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Rain Tapes (2nd nomination)

Original programming on Fuel TV

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron