Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Merging of up to 165 articles

I know editors have brought up Deletion review here, and the review of articles not up for deletion, so I thought I would bring up the suggestion to merge up to 165 articles hereTalk:List_of_South_Park_episodes#Request_for_comment Ikip (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is the ARS supposed to have to do with the RFC discussion of the merging of articles? How is this not an attempt to notify a number of like-minded people without technically falling foul of WP:CANVASS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

I'll accept this as a good faith pre-emptive thing. We see many mass bundled AfDs and have encouraged merge discussion before piling multiple related articles onto an AfD - which are then tagged for rescue when it all could have been avoided. So this is in keeping with not abusing AfD process. Many of us are able to offer outside opinions because of our experiences with these issues and not being involved at the article-level or even the related wikiproject level. An RfC is under way but despite canvassing concerns some constructive dialog does seem to be taking place. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging would be the same as deletion, if there is no way to save that much information. Merge usually just means delete, with the history of the article preserved, and a redirect left where the article once was. They knew the series was too popular to nominate the episodes for deletion outright, so did this instead. Many do not want episode list to exist at all, having said so before, and are trying to get rid of them, by any means available. Some of these episodes have had work done on them to make them pass the notability requirements, however most have never had any third party media mention at all. To these they wish to delete, or reduce to very brief summaries. If all episode articles for a popular series are seen as worth saving, or simply have the right to exist, then the rescue squadron members may wish to get involved. Or if the members want to pick an episode at random, to search for mentions of it in the news somewhere, that would help save some I suppose. Dream Focus 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly adding references about the individual articles (not just plot summaries) from newspapers or other sources that are reliable (generally referred to as reliable sources) would help to "save" any article from being deleted by "them". pablo_hablo. 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've restored this section as generally even "off"-topic discussions bear fruit here. Is there any actual ARS related anything that we need to address? If not I suggest we archive this in a day or so and encourage those interested to discuss the issues over there. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It may bear fruit, but it may not be the kind of fruit we like. I know that not all (or even most) editors here have the same intentions, but when you see a project devoted to the improvement of articles at AfD start to get involved in unrelated merge discussions, when people with one specific userbox get invited to this project, when members of this project contact other members of this project with a plea for help in an AfD against an article they created, ... then you get the impression that at least some of the editors here use this project for different, much wider aims than the originally claimed purpose. Trying to keep this project focused and to discourage unrelated canvassing (requesting help from a pre-opiniated group of editors) are good practices on talk pages, and the easiest way is by removing such posts, not by archiving them after most of the intended audience has seen it anyway. Fram (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand the concerns but, frankly, I feel they are a bit out of portion. Although things get a bit dramatic at times, the net result is that those efforts have little effect if they are baseless. This is a Wikiproject and posts and discussions inform what we do. I was quite happy in my little corner before but by remaining active here I've gained insights that I likely would have missed otherwise. I hear the frustration but those invites can be used by anyone, to invite anyone. And our official invite and welcome templates are pretty darn NPOV, IMHO. In any case, even if we think this thread is off-topic why wouldn't we archive it away? Simply deleting it seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV and Templates

Do you participate in WP:DRV? Also, do you rescue templates. I have two current DRVs. One for an article about to be overturned and one for several templates in need of rescuing. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_4#User:TonyTheTiger.2FObama.27s_first_100_days and Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:TonyTheTiger.2Fsandbox.2FSISwimsuit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not officially, (ask User_talk:Benjiboi if he comes back) but ARS members can help. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented on both. So many editors are such bullies. Ikip (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We're looking into adding XfD and possibly some subpages with helpful DIY hints and guidelines. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update. This has been enabled now and added to instruction on the {{Rescue}} page, ironically that template itself is the very first non-article tagged for rescue. -- Banjeboi 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We really don't need any additional creep in the application of this template. It was created as a tool to identify notable subjects with poorly-written articles, and increasing it to DRVs and templates and anything you might want to slap it on causes problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is one way to look at things. I don't agree. DRV, for instance, can benefit from ARS if an article is improved that the discussion is moot. Templates and categories as well are deleted in other XfD processes but also may be removing items that improve Wikipedia. The spirit is very much the same. The DRV was specifically to address articles so that, to me, is no biggee. Before we really do any wholesale tagging on templates et al though I would like to see some more helpful information to assist our project members as well as someone wanting to tag those items. For instance, a subsection that helps inform a would-be tagger where to find out info on templates and why they are deleted. We help people understand what notability and reliable sourcing are for articles and likewise we can help with other areas if only to help them understand wikipedia processes. My hunch is that traffic in non-article areas will be minimal as most newbies aren't terribly attuned to them. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's rather hard to improve a deleted article, and I can't imagine any article kept at AFD would ever be at any risk of being deleted at DRV unless DRV nom alleged actual harm to the project or subject (BLP, copyvio, etc.) Wikipedia tools that are not articles are not subject to deletion because of notability.

I do not want this to become the all-purpose Save My Shit template. Tagging non-articles needs a pretty compelling justification for a project that exists to save articles from AFD by improving them, and a vague "making newbies familiar with Wikipedia's processes" isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with him, I'm afraid. DRV is concerned with faults in the deletion process. Even though People Who Disagreed With Me Won is a depressingly common fault, expanding to cover DRV would stretch the Squadron's scale even further beyond conventional rescuing. What are we doing to help ensure that the meaning of the rescue template does not become diluted? --Kizor 21:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Tony the Tiger! Generally speaking, articles under Deletion review should be undeleted for the review with work done to improve them during the discussion anyway as our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia and not be bogged down by formality and rules that get in the way of that larger purpose. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is WP:CREEP. If anyone wants to work on a deleted article, and the deleting admin won't userify a copy for them to work on, give me a shout and I will--as long as it's appropriate. Here's how the process should work, in my mind:

1. Article is deleted through the AfD process.
2. Rescuer asks admin for copy
3. Admin restores & userifies copy of deleted article into Rescuer's user space.
4. Rescuer (and whomever wants to help) works on the userified version, fixing the reason(s) for deletion.
5. Rescuer submits improved, userified version to DRV, asking for restoration of the improved article.
6. DRV evaluates new version.

Where in this process flow is a template needed or appropriate? Where might ARS help? Probably just in step 4--the purpose of ARS is not to simply weight the !vote in step 6. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Not claiming that I am most familiar with all our work, although I certainly might be, I saw a need for this functionality a while ago when an article already tagged went to DRV but the rescue tag couldn't point to the relevant discussion. Per my explanation above I hardly see this as creeping as the spirit is the very same although how exactly to coordinate usage should be thought out as we are here to help improve Wikipedia and should be user friendly toward that end. Also I see most of the now-oft-repeated-yet-rarely-if-ever-proven refrain of "abuse" coming from newbies who are less likely to even be involved in category, DrV or template XfDs. Initially my response was also that I didn't see the usefulness at DRV articles but the fact remains that articles are restored at DRV. If ARS can help improve articles addressing the very same issues - notability and sourcing seem to be the biggees - that we do in AfD then I think we can help. I personally don't do much at DRV but I have seen quite a few be overturned and done so because the article had undergone further improvements thus addressing the stated concerns. I see us rather like doctors and medical staff - do no harm and if it may help and likely can't hurt why not try it. -- Banjeboi 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed invitation template for the ARS

Wikipedia has 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates, but the Article Rescue Squadron doesn't.

I posted an eariler version of this on several editors talk pages. All of those editors reactions were incredibly positive and thankful. But other editors posted a Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This tag has been evaluated by several editors, most especially User:Jc37, and gone through several revisions.

So I am interested if this tag is okay to use for our group. What do you all think?

Hello, [name]. You may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion, due to currently not being up to Wikipedia standards. You can join >> here <<. ~~~~

Coding

{| cellpadding=5 style="border: thin solid red; background-color: white" |- |[[File:Barnstar search rescue.png|70px]] |valign=top|Hello, {{SUBST:BASEPAGENAME}}. You may be interested in participating in the [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron|Article Rescue Squadron]]. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion, due to currently not being up to Wikipedia standards.<br>You can join [[Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#All_Members|>> here <<]]. ~~~~ |} <!--Template based on Template:WPSPAM-invite-n, one of the 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates -->

Ikip (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you really need the "Based upon what you have presented on your userpage"? The less done to equate WP:Rescue with inclusionism, the better, no? Why not just say "You may be interested in participating in..."? On another note, there's a typo on "squadron". yandman 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points, Thank you I changed this. Removing this would have avoided a lot of the past criticism. Ikip (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Different wording:

Hello, [ NAME ]. The Article Rescue Squadron is made up of editors who improve deficit articles being considered for deletion at AfDs, acting within a short period of time to address concerns and so bring them up to Wiki standards. The pressure is on, and we don't always save them... but we do our best for the improvement of Wikipedia. If this interests you, you may seek more information on the Project Page. If you'd like to join, you can do so >> here <<.

Simple. To the point. Lets them know it is a pressure situation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. You may be interested in participating in the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue members are focused on rescuing articles in jeopardy of deletion. If this interests you, you may seek more information on the Project Page. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Using Ikip's template I've started {{Article Rescue Squadron invite}} which produces:

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. -- Banjeboi 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New welcome to the project template

{{ARS Welcome}}

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Article Rescue Squadron, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Above is a new welcome to ARS template for those that sign up as members. The one thing that i think is needed still is a guide to rescuing articles with the three components: searching/identifying, rewriting/researching and how to participate at AfD more spelled out as a subpage here with links to existing sources. I think a modified version of this should be worked into a newsletter/project update at some point. -- Banjeboi 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the auto-list out of the box? For one, it stretches the box something awful. For another, people will generally want to keep that on their user or user talk, but not, say, the giant pink box or the picture of an ambulance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a "I took the liberty of throwing up {{ARS/Tagged}}, just move it wherever you'd like on your user or talk pages to be able to see what articles ARS is working on." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't find it helpful but I know others do. My hunch is the newbies will leave the whole message as is for a while, which is why I felt it should cover more ground than not. And more experience folks will peel off the template and archive the rest. I'll give it a day or so to think but I do like the gist of the wording - that may help. I do want to avoid telling folks to install it though ... hmmm. -- Banjeboi 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It just makes it easier to peel off the template and archive the rest, and it makes the template less ugly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not opposed to finding a better wording but I am opposed to removing it. If we did we'd simply end up sending yet another message telling them about it. I feel the collapsed version is acceptable and least intrusive, not sure i agree it uglifies anything. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting removing it from the template, then simply adding it to their talk page at the same time as the template. All you'd do is paste {{ARS/Tagged}}{{subst:ARS Welcome}} instead of just {{subst:ARS Welcome}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a permanent-like template rather than just a talk sections to someone's page as such seems like a bad idea. I know I'd be put off if someone did that. Isn't that generally discouraged? -- Banjeboi 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe the ARS/Tagged template should be featured prominently in the welcome template, not collapsed in a table. If it is simple color which is a concern, I can easily change the color of the template to match the bright red welcome template. The ARS/Tagged was the central feature of the predecessor of this welcome template. At a click, it allows editors to see what articles are needing to be rescued, which is the central theme of this project. Ikip (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree as it is good keeping the list in the template as it helps the editors have a starting place from which they can begin work on rescuing, no? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you but ... this is a welcome template delivered like any other message thread that generally will get archived away unless the user simply doesn't archive items. In which case it would be somewhere in the middle of their messages. Surely if this is that important than an effort should be made to install it on their permanent set-up instead. Personally, I'm not invested in that aspect but it certainly has been done before with other templates. -- Banjeboi 01:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the message will eventually get archived, can we agree that in the interm that the template would be useful? So can't we prominently add the tagged template to the welcome template so new Article Rescue Squadron editors can use it? Ikip (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the new template, as helpful to ARS and other editors alike. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please can you help on Airi & Meiri

This was tagged for rescue during the recent deletion debate, which I closed as no consensus. This is all very well and good, except that the AfD suggests there are some worrying problems with sourcing for notability - despite the fact that I have now removed the rescue template along with the AfD notice, can you guys perhaps undertake some additional cleanup to prevent the present inevitable return to AfD/DRV? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PROD rationale/etiquette

I originally posted this at the vilage pump (or whatever the hell it's called), but want to get some input from a biased group of editors (and I mean that with admiration and in the best possible sense). I don't want to call the actions of the editor disingeuous, but they certainly seem that way.

I was reviewing the PROD list recently and came across this. An article was being PROD'd for containing no information beyond a basic definition. OK. But a review of the edit history reveals that the PROD'er is the one who removed all unsourced and unencyclopedic information (paraphrase) from the article (a month prior to the PROD). Now, I have no problem with that, either. But wouldn't etiquette dictate that the original content be displayed to give people reviewing the PROD the opportunity to find sources for the information? Should the edit history be reverted to the last version of the article that contained content, then PROD based on the unsourced/unencyclopedic rationale? am I babbling, or is this coming across? Vulture19 (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vulture19 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When an article is Prodded, anyone can remove the prod, though it is generally not helpful to do so unless you explain on the talk p or edit summary why the prod was placed incorrectly, or how you are fixing the problem. Any admin checking prods will always check the page history (I hope). And when I come across this sequence, I always look very carefully if the deleted material just might be relevant & it is an unfounded attack on an article. However, giving the reason as "merely a dicdef" after removing material whether sourced or unsourced is not the least helpful to anyone trying to fix the article. The proper prod tag is something like "after removing unsourced & unencyclopedic material, there would be nothing left but a definition" leaving the material in place on the chance that someone can actually source it. DGG (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)