Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Squad morale and helping new members

I've noticed editors are sometimes so dismayed at articles they've worked on being deleted they leave the project. Even IKIP is taking a long break, I hope its because he's got some rewarding activities that need his full attention elsewhere, but maybe even his mighty heart was finding it too stressful here. So I thought it might be useful to have a thread to see if folk have any suggestions to share. Just anything that will make our work easier or help keep up moral.

Copying articles

There are many admins who say they're happy to undelete articles, but I guess many might not want to badger them every time an article they've worked on is deleted. I've started making a copy of any article I work on to wikiinfo , without waiting to see the result of the AfD - only takes 5 seconds, and its helps me feel much less bothered if the article is unfairly deleted as I know its still visible somewhere else, and can easily be resurrected on the main wiki once further sources become available or notability guidelines are successfully relaxed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's 134 people on this list who will userfy articles for you, just rotate through them (-: Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

… and userfying is a better option as the page history is restored, which it isn't with a cut-and-paste. pablo_hablo. 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording in opening paragraph?

I wouldn't say that improvement is the exact opposite of deletion. It's close, but I'd say that addition is really the opposite of deletion. Of course, improvement includes addition, but changing the wording is just something to consider. Thhhh (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Three things

1. I propose that an article must be at least 24 hours old before it can be flagged for deletion to give the creator time to build up the page to a semblance of their vision for it, acquire some references, sources, links, etc and notice, contemplate, ruminate, and reflect on needed/necessary, possible and appropriate changes.

I've done a bunch of little edits to articles here and there before, but a few days ago I created my first article. I created "Janko.at" at 23:51, 30 May 2009 and it was proposed for deletion at 23:53, 30 May 2009 .

That's ridiculous! Such actions and assumptions of "instant article perfection" are unreasonable, and unrealistic!

2. Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because to them it is relatively unknown aka not "notable". It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.

" "Its real purpose - its only true purpose - is to explore the unknown"

Gordon R. Dickson, The Final Encyclopedia " Wikinfo Main Page

3. My first created article Janko.at needs rescuing.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just had a look at your article. Wikipedia's definition of "notable" is in large part allied to its mission as an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are sometimes called "tertiary sources" - that is, they get their information from secondary sources (eg newspapers, journal articles, books, etc) which in turn get their information from primary sources (eg eyewitness accounts, laboratory reports, etc - basically original research). So Wikipedia bans "original research" because that's not what encyclopaedias do; encyclopaedias are about synthesising the research that other people have already done.

Where "notability" comes in, then, is that a topic is called "notable" if there are sufficient (reliable) secondary sources about the topic to allow someone to write an article on that topic based only on those sources. If I wanted to write an article about Google.com, for example, there are hundreds of newspaper articles, journal articles, and books written about it, so I could get information from them to write a good article.

With your article, then, the question is whether there are newspaper articles etc that talk about the website in question. If there are, then we can rescue the article by adding references to those newspaper articles, thus proving that it's a notable topic. If there aren't any, then it's not (yet) a suitable topic for Wikipedia.

I hope this helps clarify things. --Zeborah (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The newspaper "DiePresse" wrote about Janko.at in an article in Jan 2004.

Also, what do you think of my proposal for a 24 hour clemency/grace period for newly created articles? Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A 24 hour grace period has been proposed before, but it interferes with keeping out obviously inapplicable contributions. It's less elegant, but creating an article in your own user space first works quite a bit better--I tend to do it myself now--and only move it into mainspace once a decent shell of an article has been written. Unfortunately, there's very little that tells newbies how to accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of Article Rescue Squadron and Military Theme

I would respectfully suggest that the members of the Squadron consider changing the name and imagery because it comes across as very belligerent and may even influence other editors' attitudes towards the Squadron and its members as well as teh behavior of the members of the Squadron itself. The military theme isn't appropriate for Wikipedia which is supposed to be a cooperative atmosphere. Perhaps a lifeguard theme more in keeping with the life ring image would be more suitable. Just a suggestion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just "Article Rescuers"? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Some of us, on the other hand, like the name as is. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also get rid of the helicopter, it's unnecessarily helicoptery. Artw (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things within the world of Wikipedia have semi-military connotations - "vandal-fighting", "edit warring" etc. A "squadron" is not necessarily military, and I think the established name is better than a relaunch would be.

Whereas the helicopter template is indeed very helicoptery, I feel this is balanced out to a large extent by the lifebeltness of the lifebelt image. pablo_hablo. 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall that the name was chosen somewhat arbitrarily. And almost had consensus to be changed back when this started, I believe.

But anyway, as I suggested then, I think the military-seeming concerns would be avoided if "squadron" was merely changed to "squad". It would help change the sense of the name from something military to something "rescue" oriented. - jc37 05:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Squad is not that much less military than squadron. The ARS has been the ARS for HOW long without any complaints about the name? I'm not even sure the current suggestion was intended as a serious complaint. There are enough real problems to address without needing any make-believe ones. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that "squad" is any better than "squadron". How about the "Article Liberation Army"? Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The oppressor deletionists will be crushed under the iron heel of adding-a-few-sources and tidying-up-a-bit! Artw (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we have a winner in our "New ARS motto" contest. ;-) Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but only if we can make it "… politely tidying up a bit". Extra bonus points for civility. pablo_hablo. 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For a more historically accurate analogy, perhaps the "Article Liberation Army"'s slogan should be: "Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the life of the contributors!" But rather than military, the "Squadron" name always brings to my mind visions of another notable squadron ;) Dekkappai (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose name change as the current name appears in a reliable source which is significant functional documentation. Of course, the icon and other graphics might be tweaked as there are lots of good themes: International Rescue, The A-Team, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. We need more militarism in the ARS. I like the idea of the Article Liberation Army. After all, we are the armed wing of the inclusionists in the war against the deletionists. We need titles, hierarchy, and denial of service attacks against deletionist strongholds. All ARS members should wear full combat gear and camoflage when editing Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of deletion review in the morning! pablo_hablo. 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put on the Wagner, quick! Dekkappai (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the Article Liberation Army can be the militant wing of the Article Rescue Squadron. I can already see a symbol with a seven-headed snake, each head being a Wikipedia globe. Any suggestions on who would be holding the machine gun? Is Patty Hearst doing any modeling these days? Alansohn (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Many names were suggested and the current one was accepted and no one has really come up with a better one since to sway consensus to change. The underlying change concept - that if we change it our critics will desist - is flawed. I've seen nothing to convince me that those opposed to the very concpet of this group will ever be appeased. The imagery is directly pulled from the civilian aspects of paramilitary work - rescuing people stranded in natural disasters and doing humanitarian relief. I have no issues with using these in that light. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Template Triage idea

In light of the recent discussion about people being able to overwhelm ARS by placing "too many" templates, would there be a benefit if this page somehow kept track of AfD's and listed more detailed info about a pending deletion? Ideally, there should be some way to identify things that are good rescue candidates--while avoiding allegations of votestacking. What about a simple "time left" vs. "number of edits made to article since AfD opened" metric? Things that have been relatively unmodified since the beginning of the AfD should be higher priority, and as AfD's age towards closure without significant contributions, then a "color code" could be displayed that showed that no one was actually working on modifying the article flagged for rescue. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got half an idea for annotating the rescue project, with a note in the template passing to this listing why or how the tagger feels the article might be rescued. It'd resolve a lot of the fights over what should be tagged and when, and also would give the tag more utility for a potential rescuer than a bare {{cleanup}} tag. Thing is, it'd require both template hackery and working with the bot operator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas but these too are not accurate to telling us how to prioritize work here. I also agree in part with Artw and Drawn Some that using the tag does not in itself require someone to rescue work or commenting so that likely would be the first steps here. Something neutral similar to have {{POV}} really shouldn't be used without discussion of issues for other editors to know what's going on. -- Banjeboi 04:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a parameter for why you feel the article can be rescued eliminates accusations of bad faith tagging and gives rescuers something to start with. It makes identifying good-faith misuse of the template easy. Considering these have all been contentious issues with lots of assumption of reasons for doing things lately, I think it might be worth doing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I always note in either the article edit summary where I add the rescue tag or in my AfD input, and often in both places exactly why I think the topic may be rescuable and what I think needs to happen.

However, I haven't seen anyone comment yet on the idea of a metric (edits per time since deletion nomination) to measure the presence or lack of forward progress. How does that sound as a metric? I propose it because it's totally unaffected by votestacking one way or the other--it ignores the AfD entirely, and focuses on the rescue-nominated article's recent rate of change. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on having a parameter giving your reasoning for the rescue tag. Time left and edits since AfD might be useful metrics to report. Of course, not all editing work occurs before the close of AfD; sometimes the existence of sources in the AfD discussion is enough to save it. Fences and windows (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of having space to explain why/how it can be rescued. I'm not sure whether metrics would be useful or not. "Time left" would be useful but number of edits fails to distinguish between someone fixing a typo and someone rewriting large chunks of the article with references. --Zeborah (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And someone gutting the article would look the same as someone expanding it. Fences and windows (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gutting isn't always harmful, and expansion isn't always helpful. I know of no way (aside from Cluebot and its ilk) to determine the "good faith" of an edit, so all this would serve to do is highlight articles tagged for rescue without corresponding edits. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of a metric is an interesting one but isn't accurate enough to actually help much except maybe to show something that has been neglected, and maybe rightfully so. I'm opposed to the parameter idea, one's statement shouldn't be a POV placed on the article itself but one editor's opinion at the discussion itself. No matter what parameter, rules, etc we enact editors can still game the system if they choose to disrupt. These need to dealt with on a case by case basis. I' open to finding ideas that work but these are not quite there. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the parameter could be useful to other ARS members - if the tagger said "Needs more sources" or "Needs expansion" or "Needs to be rewritten in nonPOV language" then it gives other rescuers an idea of where to start. --Zeborah (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither the template nor any tag will be in any way binding. In general an editor should have an idea of why he thinks an article is rescuable before placing the rescue template. That idea should be a possible starting point for editors seeking to improve the article. Taemyr (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With 115 articles tagged for rescue at the moment, at a short investigation it appears that people are adding rescue templates to hopeless cases. This will bog down ARS work. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternately accounts can slow down with the AfD nominations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this still boils down to those of us who are more experienced need to lead the way a bit and when something can obviously be fixed to spell out what that path to improvement is on the discussion - whether as a keep or simply as Comment. Ideally we would also do that work. Likelwise we all should expand out discussion notes to be helpful for those looking for sourcing, content ideas and even warnings like - "even if this is kept for now there needs to be improvements with adding non-primary sources or this article will likely be nommed again." I accept a broader definition of what it means to rescue but IMHO a true rescue is when someone is improved so much that a renom is rather laughable as the improved article is better written, and sourced. In any case teh parameter should be your comment at the discussion and remain just your opinion of the situation not the official ARS perspective or the chief rebuttal to nom. We want to encourage discussion towards improvement. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

Resolved

 – This is at TfD, see discussion there for status. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a "rescued" tag to show where in AFD debates the rescue effort has begun, previously we have been adding a tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I don't think that is useful since nothing has changed at that point.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamas–Russia relations See here for an example that contrasts the difference in placement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think {{Rescued}} is a bit POV and should be deleted. You likely mean well but the discussion page would be fine with a comment note stating the same thing. It also put the credibility of the project in dispute as if to say ARS project now feels ___ article shoudl be kept when we don't do that as a project. In fact we often disagree in the very same discussions. I don't see a future use of the tag that would cause more problems in the short and long term, sorry. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the main template, I hope this is ameniable, if not I'll look to deleting it but would prefer not to go that route. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should argue for keeping using sources and by highlighting what improvements have been made, not by using templates. Fences and windows (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update. I was reverted so have sent it to TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Rescued. -- Banjeboi 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm confused - is this the same template we're discussing below? It seems to have different text. pablo_hablo. 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  Similar but different, this one is an actual template where the below is coded message box - the template coding is pasted in rather than being its own template page. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue box in AfD discussion

When did this template come into use? pablo_hablo. 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this one at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion a few minutes ago. Fram (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When I started putting it on AFD's where I thought it would be relevent and informative. Is there a problem with including a simple box on the article? Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks odd, dominates the page, and I can't see what value it adds to the discussion - whether it's tagged for rescue should make no difference to people's comments on the AfD. No-one should be !voting in the AfD without reading the article, which would already have an ARS template on it. pablo_hablo. 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things. "Should" and "Are" are different things. Admins close debates all the time without reading the page. They should be made aware of the tag, don't you think? Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, why? The presence or otherwise of a rescue tag should be irrelevant to the closer. Now, if the presence of the tag has led to improvement of the article someone should comment and mention that, but that;s pretty far from a given. 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that admins are meant to neutrally interpret consensus, why would they read the article first? Surely doing so would render them non-neutral? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They should do so to make sure the participants in the discussion are honest. I have seen in AfDs where, for example, accounts claimed Tobago was "not even a colony of France", when in factual reality it was several times over the course of three centuries. Now if that view took hold and the article was deleted as a result, it wouldn't be right. An admin need not surrender neutrality by double-checking that the statements in the discussion are truthful or accurate. Just as in several fiction discussions, accounts have said "no references" or "no out of universe" information. Well, in some instances there may be "little" of these, but technically saying who played as the character or what have you is out of universe and if referenced perhaps mergeable. I see a tremendous deal of inaccurate statements in AfDs that really someone should not just go by what the accounts say in the AfD, but see if what they say is actually true. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Some votes are made before changes requested are made, it lets the closer know that debate after that point includes changes made to address concerns raised earlier. There may be five deletes because there are no references in the article, someone adds references and adds the tag, so people know that changes were made to address concerns raised. Votes after changes should be weighed differently. Note here where a tag is added when ARS is notified but no changes have been made to the article. The point where concerns are addressed is the best insertion point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:28 (cur; prev), 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles are edited during AfD, whether they are tagged for {{rescue}} or not. Articles are edited during AfD by "ARS members" and other editors alike. Using this particular template (instead of just a normal comment pointing out that the article has been improved) seems to indicate any improvements somehow carry more weight because they are ARS-approved. That's not a good thing. pablo_hablo. 21:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. IMHO this box appeared when ARS suddenly had about 100+ more tagged items than usual and the template seems to serve to shame the tagger into doing something. I think it should go, AfD is for discussion not templating one's decrees. Two wrongs don't make a right even if you feel someone is mass rescue tagging AfDs. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I also think it should go. It is sensible to mention any actual improvement that is made to an article during the AfD process, (whether the article had been rescue-tagged or not) but mentioning the mere fact that it has been rescue-tagged serves no useful purpose that I can see. Admins certainly don't need to be aware of the tag, just the article and the debate. pablo_hablo. 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Eh... I like {{rescued}} better. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Could we wait for consensus before starting using new templates or procedures on this project, please? Fences and windows (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy and war

Resolved

 – Article tagged please see AfD for current status. -- Banjeboi 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently created a new article named Telepathy and war, which was later nominated for deletion. The article was well referenced and covered research by Darpa (a division of the Pentagon), and by Darpa funded bodies, into Synthetic Telepathy. The technology is being developed for application on the battlefield and, Darpa says, to intercept and influence communications. I attempted to engage in discussion with other users who wanted to delete the page, then opted to let the article rest for a day or two while seeking editor assistance. At the editor assistance page I was referred to the Article Rescue Squadron. I am happy to have other editors help develop the article - which covers genuinely reported research published by reputable sources. In originally creating the article I referenced it with 19 footnotes. The footnotes referenced research published in science publications, research published on the websites of two of the universities who conducted the research, and research reported by recognised news organisations. These references are available in earlier versions of the page but were removed by an editor who strangely later tried to claim the content was unreferenced. The reported research does sound unusual, but a number of reports show that it is being carried out. I believe that Wikipedia should cover these advances in military applications of Brain-computer interfaceing. I feel more material published by legitimate sources exists that can be referenced to grow the article, particularly over time as more information about the research could emerge. Frei Hans (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want this squad to swarm the article and discussion, you should add

{{rescue}}

to the top of the article just below the AfD message. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, there's no guarantee that ARS members will be interested in or want to rescue any given article. We're not robots. Fences and windows (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There really is nothing to rescue. I'll remove the tag shortly. Verbal chat 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the AfD will decide if it's unrescue-able. The present discussion looks to be a merge of sorts. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update - article has been deleted, we'll all miss the discussion, but time to archive and move on.  pablo_hablo. 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)