Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 33
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
This one seems worth rescuing. If you check here, we find that in 1997, for example, Germany was Libya's second "most important trading partner," which does seem a measure of "notability" of their relations. Anyway, I have begun reworking the history section accordingly. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest you move this helpful comment to that AfD discussion with the source. -- Banjeboi 17:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'd rather we have a discussion here as well that is about "rescuing" an article rather that the couple threads above that just don't seem to be accomplishing anything constructive. The Afd is primarily a discussion over whether or not the article should be kept; here we can discuss how it can be improved. Besides, hopefully the participants of the AfD are keeping an eye on developments with the article under discussion. Anyway, I am still working on this one. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the point. AfD decides if the article is to exist at all so relevant notability would go there. General comments that may address all the articles likely should go to the taskforce - "I found a great source that can be extrapolated to other articles", etc. Nothing personal, I'd just rather be actually rescuing than talking about it. I'm open though. -- Banjeboi 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I would rather be rescuing too, but at the same time, I'd rather this project's talk page included discussions on articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you but a protracted battle of words or threads also diminishes progress. This will end but with what dignity intact if everyone doesn't pull collective thumbs out? We'll get there even if it's terribly uncomfortable at the moment. The best answer to your critics will always be excellence and maybe a hot date who gropes you publicly. -- Banjeboi 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay then, I'll comment there. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you but a protracted battle of words or threads also diminishes progress. This will end but with what dignity intact if everyone doesn't pull collective thumbs out? We'll get there even if it's terribly uncomfortable at the moment. The best answer to your critics will always be excellence and maybe a hot date who gropes you publicly. -- Banjeboi 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I would rather be rescuing too, but at the same time, I'd rather this project's talk page included discussions on articles. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Now regarding this one, ChildofMidnight proposed retooling as List of notable covers of Beatles songs or List of Beatles covers and A Man In Black as List of covers of the Beatles. Anyway, as I said on A Man In Black's page and as I added to the article, there actually are published books that do list covers (even the title of a book includes "Cover Songs" in it), so it is not original research, but is verifiable through reliable secondary sources, and in the case of the specific songs, we even have university-press published sources devoted specifically to comparisons of them. So, should we take up either ChildofMidnight or A Man In Black's proposals as the way forward here, or scratch "list" from the title and instead use sources like those I cite in the above diff to make a more prose based article on covers of the Beatles' songs? If nothing else that one on "Eleanor Rigby" is probably at least worth merging to the article on that particular song. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, again, the article is tagged for rescue and this seems to violate the spirit of keeping discussion in one place. Having a parallel discussion when AfD is for this very thing seems like a bad idea. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles would be a more apt place for discussion but ultimately it's the AfD where the fate lies on this one. -- Banjeboi 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I added a reference and made some minor clean ups. I put reference to the article AFD on two "significant pages that link to your nomination", per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. I really have no interest at all in the subject, and I felt like I was doing a nasty household chore looking for references, but I contributed a little. Ikip (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Userfication notice when editors attempt to create a new article
Discussion on background and concepts collapsed for navigation. | |
---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
Currently when an editor attempts to create a new article, they get this message:
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 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)
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. pablohablo. 13:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, really there are three strands here:
Ikip is re-starting the first strand on (struck) Where should we discuss the other two? - Pointillist (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new addition to new articlesPointillist 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: [[User:{{REVISIONUSER}}/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]], which allows a user to simply click the link to start a new userfied page. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Moving forward
Redrafts and discussion collapsed for navigation | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
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. pablohablo. 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Here are some changes I made, incorporating many of Mark's sections. Ikip (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
|
- Proposal text:
“ | You can start your new article first here: [[Special:MyPage/{{PAGENAME}}]]. You can get the article in shape, with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and only [[Help:Moving_a_page|move]] it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. | ” |
- Note: Proposal at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Suggestion to add new line. Please comment there. -- Banjeboi 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Old bot idea
I found this at AfD: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_42#Bot_Idea
- "I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot".
I don't know what happened to this idea ... Ikip (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It was probably abandoned for {{find}}. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)