Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:46, 25 February 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

Articles currently tagged

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

There are currently 491 articles tagged for deletion at Articles for deletion.

The above count for "articles tagged for deletion" is way off, at the time of writing it showed "10,052" when the actual number is 514... Could someone please either correct the template, or remove it as dreadfully incorrect? Fram (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV rescue template?

I think a DRV rescue template should be made as well for such articles as Alien and Predator timeline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic. ARS is about improving articles up to a state where they will pass. For DRV the articles are deleted, so can not be accessed. Taemyr (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not always as some DRVs are for articles that were kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, DRV is suppose to be about the AfD itself not the article per se. If there is a DRV in process, however, I'm not opposed to improving an article during DRV so those looking can see improvements in process. Banjeboi 02:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I agree that a modified template for DRV is appropriate as DRV is also used to discuss an article's merit so continuing to improve it to address concerns raised in both AFD and DRV would make sense. Maybe {{Rescue-DRV}}? Banjeboi 00:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is redlinked? best, --A Nobody 05:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should simply modify the current template so we can point to a DRV instead of a AfD. The template has to be tweaked and explanation for use added to the template page and then we can sort out how to update the project page to reflect this. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars project

I'm not suggesting that every rescue should get a barnstar but it does seem like honoring those who have saved an article could use some recognition. I think the first step might be expanding the list of articles rescued, which, of course, means we figure a good way to track those. Then list them and possible evaluate if someone(s) greatly improved the article vs, the AfD discussion was generally for keeping. Along with the list would be our suggested guideline for issuing barnstars as well as the barnstar gallery. Banjeboi 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rawr. I want MOAR barnstars! I think this is a good idea. I know User:Ecoleetage hands them out now and again for people who rescue his nominations from deletion (he's very open about being proven wrong when it means an article will be saved and improved), you should see if he wants to help. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at clearing up the barnstar section above first then proceed from there. Banjeboi 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well as often happens the timing was rather dismal, User:Ecoleetage just went on wikibreak due to RfA drama but, assuming he returns, (I hope), we can invite him in. I've set-up the barnstars on the mainpage and the current system of listing articles currently tagged seems the best way of tracking. In addition to the list of rescued articles there's at least two dozen awaiting to be added - all could get barnstarred. Banjeboi 06:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question from a prospective member

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron. In my experiences with AfDs and Deletionism in general, a sense of futility and isolation set in and finally led me to hang up the "Retirement" sign. I've been lurking around in my retirement, however, and came across this project, and think it's a great idea. One of the irritating things, when I saw a clearly inappropriate Afd-- which I would see about once a day-- was that there are no consequences for the nominator. Those who wish to save the article do all the work that the nominator should have done-- if he really cares about improving Misplaced Pages-- and that work is usually rewarded by nothing more than maybe not seeing perfectly good material removed. So here's my question: Do you guys have any kind of a "Barnstar" to "reward" these guys who are abusing the AfD process to let them know that their "work" is being noticed? "Worst AfD nomination of the week / month / year?" or something like that? "Most number of AfD nominations within one category?" "Most repeat-nominations for a single article?" Or would this be considered "disruptive" (as if abuse of the AfD system were not disruptive...) Anyway, I'm looking around, and might join you guys later, if you'll have me. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that sort of thing tend to be seen as abusive. If you feel an editor is abusing the AfD system, or interpreting the AfD process in a disruptive way the correct way to proceed is first to discuss the issue with the editor, then to post at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts or begin a RfC on his conduct. In addition, although this is just my opinion and one not shared by most project members, fragrantly bad AfD noms are outside of scope for this project. If there is no reason for deletion, there is no improvement to the article that will qualify as rescue. Taemyr (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Harassing the deletionists is out? :-( OK, I took a stab at the article on the top of your list: The God That Failed (song). Is this the kind of thing the project does? Dekkappai (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. And yes. Taemyr (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering creating something like a {{uw-badafd}} series of user warning templates, though, with pointers to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. There are user warning templates for using dashes incorrectly, so I see no reason why submitters of the poorest AfDs should be immune from constructive criticism. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think anything like that is going to look like an attack. What would be cool is if some bot would keep track of AfDs, who nominated them, and their deletion percentage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Any template has a sense of impersonalness that can be viewed as hostile. Look through WP:UWT and see if there isn't room for such a template amongst others such as {{uw-italicize}} and {{uw-preview}}. It would have to be worded appropriately, but there's nothing intrinsically more hostile with such a template than any of the others. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Such a template would also likely violate the don't template the regulars concept. Any meaningful change, IMHO, needs to be policy based - either in clearly sussing out what policies define as AfD abuse and how to respond to alleged abuse - or changing policies to define what is abusive and remedies for addressing the concerns.

The bot-tracking of AfDs on its surface sounds good, but would need to be highly refined. Ultimately it would be, IMHO, a badge of honor, for some users, and unlikely deterrent for the rest. I would also be concerned that someone would in any way game the systems so their numbers registered one way or another. I am interested to see what others think about what would actually deter bad AfDs from coming down the pipeline. If we change a step in the nomination process or otherwise tweak the system will it resolve the issue or just re-align where the problems are at? For instance if most AfD's are instead encouraged to prod first - just an idea here - in theory many articles would be deleted that no one is watching or cares enough about. In turn a whole wing of prod-watching would emerge so is it really a good solution? -- Banjeboi 02:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta da! It's beta and it doesn't quite get merges right, but there you go. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That was scary quick! If it could give totals it might be more meaningful and frankly this leads to having List of editors by AfDs with sortable columns for Keep's, Delete's, no-consensus, merge and other. I bet that takes more tahn a few minutes! -- Banjeboi 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Full disclosure that was from User:SQL, not me. I wouldn't know a regular expression from an elephant on stilts. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if an elephant on stilts is irregular the expressions of those around will likely be, too. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The bad-AfD "barnstar" is no doubt a bad idea. It would be taken as either a "personal attack", or as a badge of honor, depending on the humor of the deletionist so tagged... But the idea for it came about because of the total lack of a system of checks on the deletion/AfD system... People are free to nominate, basically, any article, as many times as they wish, without consequence (as long as they don't go too far overboard). If I follow what this project is doing, I was doing much the same thing on my own before I threw in the towel at Misplaced Pages. I was usually saving articles, too, but some of those articles were subsequently re-nominated by the original nominators. And, since by then I had come to see defending them as futile, and no one else stepped forward, they are gone now... With no possibility of any kind of repercussions for mass-nominating, multiple-nominating, "I don't like it" nominations, nominating without doing the slightest bit research, there is really no reason not to to nominate an article for deletion, if one is of that mindset... It just seems like a crazy system to me. Anyway, it looks like you guys have a good idea going here, and I'll try to do what little I can to help out when I am able. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• there is a pretty strong social pressure against renomination of articles which are basically unchanged and meet policy. This is distinct from articles which don't meet policy but get kept due to local consensus. I see plenty of AfD's closed under SPEEDY or SNOW because the nominator made a serial AfD from an otherwise good article. The system isn't perfect, but it basically works. We see very few articles that clearly meet guidelines deleted without review. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure about that - having saved a few articles that no one though were salvagable I wonder how many others were deleted because no one cared enough or had the spare hours within the set time frame. I love the prospect of the list of editors by AfD if SQL's tool can be modified for it. This might give inspiration for more systematic investigation. I can't remember who it was but I sharply recall a user who has a boasting of how many articles they had deleted - that seems like a terrible achievement when the goal is to create. I also think Jclemens idea about highlighting links that stress steps before an AfD and alternatives to AfD are also helpful. I disagree a template would be the way to go as outlined but unsure what a better option would be. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I know what you mean... I know absolutely nothing about Metallica, but just a simple look through a couple of book indexes, and I found a whole essay on the song that was up for deletion... And the article had apparently been successfully prodded before, and just escaped this time because the time had elapsed! I see that today a list I was involved in saving a couple times is now up for its sixth trial on the AfD chopping-block. I knew an editor who kept a trophy-wall of articles he had got deleted. In fact at one point he nominated the list I just mentioned. Like many deletionists, he is now an Admin... The sense of futility sets in, and I've finally just given up on that list. They can have it. I'll salvage the parts I wrote and cart them off to another Wiki-like project I'm involved in. Why continue scrounging around for sourcing, writing, and arguing against the deletion, when all they have to do is slap a tag on it, sit back and hope they hit a jackpot this time... and if not this time, there's always next?... I like the project you guys have set up here, but I'm beginning to get the same sinking feeling I had before I retired-- like I'm trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teacup... I don't think it is a system that works well most of the time. Good material is deleted on a regular basis unless someone steps in and devotes their time to working on someone else's article. (And don't even start on images! Within about half an hour, I could probably show you half a dozen deleted Fair Use or Public Domain film posters that have been wrongly deleted because the image description was not filled out so that a bot could read it.) I do think that the majority of editors here at Misplaced Pages are opposed to this overzealous deletion, but those who are in favor of it are usually the ones who gain positions of authority. Some sort of popular revolution against this deletionist free-for-all needs to get started. I hope someone wakes me up when it does... I'll be happy to join it. Until then, I'll devote my time to a project that craves more rather than less material from its editors. Dekkappai (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• such is the nature of the fight. It is always going to be it easier to delete than to improve, and the only defense the encyclopedia has against that is the persistence of people who do not give up. Perhaps not everyone can save an article a day, but almost anyone can save at least one a week. Of the 10000 or so articles at AfD a week, I'd say that about 1/2 will be hopeless, 1/4 will be kept, and 1/4 can be kept only if th y are improved. Thats 250 a week. 250 people each doing one a week can make the difference. I continue to be an optimist, and thing we have 3250 good and sensible people here. The ay to get more of them is to avoid alienating people. This is the othr side of NOT OWN -- it should be sen as meritorious to improve someone else's article a your own. this is our project, and they are all of them our articles.

Dekkkappai, nobody will throw out the deflationists for you. You can defeat the by improving some articles so thoroughly that they can go ahead an delete them. (And also by staying around to join in the defense of those that are good enough to pass.). i figure if we win half the time, that's a lot better than the alternative. The key to winning even half the time, of course, is selectivity-hence this project and the focus it can bring. 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

I was thinking of creating a sub article of this article which lists great AfD debates, as examples for future editors attempting to save articles.

For example:

Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates

I have been trying to teach editors how to debate in Articles for Deletion. I realized that Articles for Deletion examples would be very helpful for new editors, but I think I need help. travb (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARS is not about the debates. It's about the articles. The best rescues are those that makes the debate moot. Taemyr (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable going down that road. We should find ways to encourage editors to understand the threshold of notability and also how to reolve real concerns of article creep. For instance, many of the fictional item AfD'd would be fine in a list format rather than separate articles. While I don't tend to delete items I also am concerned that we are getting a lot of articles that aren't notable because we are advertising ARS in your tips talkpage postings. There are already some good resources along the lines of what you're asking about but before they go in guns blazing they should take a breath and consider if an article is indeed appropriate at this point. A cleaned article about a non-notable subject is still an article in trouble. Having stated all that it may not be a bad idea to start up a thread on what works/what doesn't and see if any ideas pop from that. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benjiboi :) I started a general article: User:Inclusionist/Del. I am trying to teach new editors how to survive in an AfD discussion.

RE: "Past successful deletion debates" I will do something unaffiliated with this project, I don't want to ruffle any feathers. Maybe I can solicit advice from editors to share some of their most incredible war stories.

I already checked all of the AfDs involving WP:NALBUMS, WP:NSONGS, which is on User:Inclusionist/Del. But would like more specific success stories

travb (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent_Article_for_deletion_debates

I solicited stories on village pump. I would love to hear your story... travb (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

New idea to recognize efforts

Please see and help with User:A Nobody/Article Rescuers' Hall of Fame, which I have created in my userspace for now. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job, I think it should be a subsection in the list of Article Squadron members. Maybe instead (or also) have the list by article, not by person because

1. Its about the articles, not the editors
2. Often several Article Rescue Squadron editors Tag team to save an article, not just one editor. travb (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. We had something similar to this at DYK, which later resulted in some very heated discussions. It'd be better to list them by articles, since otherwise it might look like attention seeking (which some people would not like that much). Chamal 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem that I have with listing this by article, and not editor (and I write this as someone who has had next-to-zero involvement in AfD, so I'm not trying to get in the "Hall" myself):

• From a practical standpoint, listing by articles will likely yield a list of incredibly awkward length. I mean, what if the Football Hall of Fame listed all the "Great Plays", or even just the "Great Games"? Can you imagine how huge the number of "members" would be?
• And that's another thing: It just doesn't feel right. I mean, Halls of Fame have members. Doesn't it seem silly to have "Great Plays" in a Hall of Fame rather than players? Of course, they're related, (the greatest players make great plays more often than others) but we create Halls to honor people, not things. Unschool 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Personally I'm conflicted on this. Many many articles are rescued without our involvement, that is not true for DYK, which is a more vetted process with defined parameters. Some feel a merger, or perhaps anything that isn't a delete, is a form of a rescue but I'm not sure I agree with that. Also this list will be huge and I'm not sure that makes sense. Perhaps we could simply have a list, not call it "Hall of fame", and use it to note when someone has been recognized for rescue work. I'll point to DGG who has undoubtably been instrumental in many saves but usually doesn't get credited as they mainly present sound perspective in AfD. Perhaps ditch the Hall of fame and treat more NPOV as just a list of note. What it is used for can be sussed out after more discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

With John W. Rogers, Jr. yesterday being promoted to Good Article, and counting Manny Harris, Nate Parker, Toni Preckwinkle and Tory Burch, I have created articles for five formerly deleted articles and taken them to WP:GA-class. I am making the announcement since I only have one rescue barnstar and there seem to be several different ones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that some WP:ARS purists might be a bit taken aback by my claim. I should clarify my recovery involvment. I have successfully saved Thomas Wilcher at WP:AFD. I was unsuccessful with Toni Preckwinkle on its second AFD. However, I took both articles to WP:GA status. All of the other articles were deleted without my involvement mostly through CSD prior to my recreation and promotion to GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which barnstar would be appropriate, but very nice job. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! That is wonderful. Three cheers for Fisher! You are an inspriation and a model for all wikipedians to follow. travb (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a new category Category:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class and template Template:Rescued for use on recreated good articles talk pages. I added this template to the five articles of TonyTheTiger, and I am going to solicit whether other editors know of any other articles which were deleted then reached good article status too. Ikip (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed it again from Nate Parker, since the deleted article was about a different person and was correctly deleted. The Tory Burch article which was deleted was pure spam, with the wonderful closing line "Information provided by Brandhabit.com", and so was also a perfectly correct deletion. Only one of the other deletions was after an actual AfD discussion, so really relevant here. Fram (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

I just welcomed all of the new ARS members with this:

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron {{PAGENAME}}, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. ~~~~

Coding:

==Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! ==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
! rowspan="3" valign="top" |
! align="left" | WELCOME
| align="right" | <small>from a <font color="black">] member</font></small>
|-
| colspan="2" valign="top" align="left" style="background:#99CC00; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | 
]
Welcome to ] {{PAGENAME}},  a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:  
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
!align="left" width="700"|Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
|-
|
<categorytree mode=pages showcount=on>Articles tagged for deletion and rescue</categorytree>
|}
I look forward to working with you in the future.   ~~~~ 
|}

Ikip (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Example

Tunnel Running was a logn ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2  07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of embattled users

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 wikipedia 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)

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)

Medals

I started awarding Article Rescue Squadron medals to those people listed on Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame, the coding is here:

{{ARS|ArticleTitle}}

You don't have to add a name to this list to award someone or yourself this medal. Ikip (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 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:

Misplaced Pages:ARS/Tagged

Coding: {{WP: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)

Please note that A Man in Black has in the past couple of weeks:

1. tediously argued on ANI against editors inviting other editors to join WP:ARS, despite 260 other templates which do the same thing.
2. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
3. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
4. raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue Ikip (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

3 and 4 are the same thing and linked immediately below. 2 is false, but I suppose it's the thanks I get for politely asking you on your talk page how WP:PRESERVE could be rewritten for clarity and elegance without damaging its meaning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron accused of canvassing

Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#WP:ARS_and_Template:ARS.2FTagged. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning, discussion already at 33 kilobytes, it may be time to split the article! LOL!. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New idea!

After a discussion with A Man In Black in a recent AfD, I wonder if we can have one of those small script "This article has been tagged for rescue" kind of comments like the wikiprojects use for deletion sorting? Best, --A Nobody 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me an example A Nobody. Ikip (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at some of the AfDs on the left, notice the little notes in the discussions. Best, --A Nobody 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to be more specific, this?:

For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion
Steps to list an article for deletion:
   1. {{subst:afd}}
   2. {{subst:afd2|pg=Mr. Skullhead|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ (categories)
   3. {{subst:afd3|pg=Mr. Skullhead}} (add to top of list)
   4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Mr. Skullhead}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

Ikip (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this kind of thing but for ARS. Best, --A Nobody 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need actually as our template on the article is about as clear as one would expect. Potentially we could get a bot to do it though. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To put a fine point on it, there's nothing saying that the AFD is being advertised to partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am indifferent either way.Ikip (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles at 2nd AfD

Hello, ARS. All of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection articles have been put up for deletion. I took the time to add sourcing/reviews from mainstream media to all of the articles. I had more sources to check-- print media in particular-- but the nominator of the articles has instigated some kind of attack against me. I don't follow Wiki-legal-drama enough to know what it is all about, but will avoid further editing to these articles for my own safety-- perhaps the goal of the action? Anyway, a beginning of sourcing and commentary is there at the articles now, if anyone else wants to pick it up. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikiquette alert, Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Dekkappai is actually a nice way to try to dial down drama all around. Just like other calls for more eyes on a situation everyone involved is looked at. I would encourage you to take the suggestions at face value knowing that sometimes what we think we're writing comes off a bit harsher than intended. It's better to try to mend a working relationship and move on than take any of it personally, even if it is meant so. Someone calls you booger breath, so what? The best response is simply excellence in your work. Get back to those articles and improve them! -- Banjeboi 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Benjiboi, but actually I didn't call anyone anything, nor am I complaining about being called anything. I complained about an AfD I felt, and still do feel was a waste of other editors' time. And I was in the process of sourcing and expanding the articles when the nominator turned me over to this review process. I noticed another similar editor-review going on at the discussion board at the same time-- is this typical behavior at AfDs nowadays? If someone complains about the AfD and starts working on the articles, send them off to waste editing time at comment boards? And when I began adding external links/newspaper articles reviewing the individual releases, my work was denigrated by another editor. (I have no intention of hauling that editor off to a tribunal, which I think is childish. I am here to improve articles, not to play this kind of schoolyard "gotcha" game.) The nominator apparently made no attempt to check sourcing on these articles, because there is sourcing galore available on each one. At least two have won "Best release" awards-- one from the Parents' Choice Awards. I further feel that the Wikiquette alert was another attempt to waste editors' time, and have responded only briefly there, because, again, I personally attacked no one. As a matter of fact, I feel that I was the one attacked by that completely unnecessary alert. It seemed a needless provocation intended to divert my attention from working on the articles. Anyway, I've done some minimal work on the articles today-- they are really outside of my areas interest/expertise, I just joined in because I thought they were such absurd nominations. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to feel similar to this but then, after seeing way too many AfDs, realized that the community patience for repeat AfDs does grow thin and - despite an effort to remove the material - articles actually improve as a result of the attention. I also suggest being extra civil so that those who aren't stick out more. Sensible editors still abound so baseless accusations will be easily seen as such. If an editor is causing problems it will catch up to them, maybe not soon enough, but it will. Be cautious not to let someone else's issues overshadow your goals and work here. The AfD is going along fine and likely will be a no consensus or keep. The nominator, well, just stay clear and if provoked asked for other eyes. Hopefully this will be a learning lesson for them. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Benji. Yeah, it just kind of took me by surprise-- I've been far more outspoken at other AfDs and this is the first kind of comment I've ever had on my behavior. Anyway, you're right, it seems to be going along fine. I'll try to chip in a little more on the articles tomorrow. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, when in doubt take a breather and call in support! -- Banjeboi 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template for articles under deletion review?

I propose creating a template for articles under deletion review. Ikip, are you up to that? Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, I did create this, and it was promptly deleted by the editor I made it for. But it will take me two seconds to remake it. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be the goal of this? If you want to improve a deleted article, just ask pretty much any admin to undelete and userfy/projectify it for you. A Nobody does this all the time, and ideally this is done before a DRV. If it's an article that wasn't deleted that's at DRV, 99% of the time it's at DRV because of some issue other than not being well-sourced enough. (Typical issues involve copyvio, libel, etc.) With a goal, that informs the form and use of the template.

A simple cat (or a template with the cat, if you really want) to link this project's userfied-with-the-intent-of-restoration pages would probably be a good idea, come to think of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreated, Template:AfD/Tagged I am going to combine several templates to make one grand template. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The coding is right here:

{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" align=right  cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" width=300px
!style="background: #cdc"| Articles tagged for ] 
|-
|align=left| <categorytree mode=pages>Articles for deletion</categorytree>
|}
<noinclude>]</noinclude>

18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Category rename proposal

Our current category, Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics is overly cumbersome and not very hip. I propose renaming it to Category:Articles tagged for deletion and rescue which I believe remains NPOV and concise. The only way an item should be added is by our {{rescue}} template doing so. If we expand the template use to include DRV we can simply amend the category page lede to reflect that.

In asking about the technical aspects, I was encouraged to sort out any timing of a change-over with our Arsbot operator and add a redirect to the new category page. Given this information please add support, oppose, comment etc. so we can look for consensus on what to do:

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support The current category name is overly precise and too wordy, and the proposed name conveys essentially the same information. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support thanks ben. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 7 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)

Why not get together and change policy at its source?

Instead of waiting for articles to be nominated for deletion, and rushing to save them, why not get together, and change the policy that allows them to be so unjustly removed so easily? It only takes a handful of people over there, to have the majority consensus and change anything you don't like. Lets start with something simple. If a book has been on the bestsellers list, should it be counted as notable, even if no one is reviewing it? I started a discussion about that on the notability policy pages awhile back. If an article is deemed too long, can should someone be able to just create an wiki on the www.wikia.com(owned by the founder of wikipedia), copy it over to preserve it, and link to it in order to preserve it? Should articles dedicated to a list of weapons, equipment, or other information be preserved? At the moment, some are, while others who have fewer editors around to protest their deletion, are deleted. Should we not have a set rule for everything? All policy pages seem to have just a small number of people around to discuss them and edit or revert things at any given day. Would you save more articles you think should be kept, by changing policy? Seems it would be far less work in the long run. Dream Focus (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we should absolutely not have a "set rule for everything." Misplaced Pages has a framework of rules that encompass the whole project, and it's too much for any one editor to claim to know and understand all of it already. Personally, I am a firm believer in taking things on a case-by-case basis, and "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules" is one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Yes, some articles get deleted when maybe they shouldn't, and some get kept because some lazy administrators count heads instead of actually weighing the strength of the arguments. The system isn't perfect, but the last thing we need is more rules to learn. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The best thing we can do is support the abolition of "notability" as a guideline or its replacement with Misplaced Pages:Inclusion criteria or Misplaced Pages:Inclusion guideline. AfD also needs serious reform as well. If you would like to help, try to revive Misplaced Pages:Deletion reform, Misplaced Pages:Notability/Historical/Non-notability, and Misplaced Pages:Pure wiki deletion system. Remember though that the purpose of this wikiproject is to rescue articles. Best, --A Nobody 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus and A Nobody. I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out.

As I have told to A Nobody, and I will tell to you Dream Focus, arguing on these policy pages is pointless, those who support these policies tend to congregate there and create an echo chamber. Ikip (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And you get your army together and we'll (supporters of the notability criteria) will get ours together and we can all talk shit past each other for thousands of posts. But thanks for the heads-up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh damn everyone! We are caught! I thought this page was only seen by WP:ARS members! Run for the hills! ....

Talking about changing things, look what happened today: Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation‎ Ikip (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to side very strongly with Beeblebrox about maintaining looseness and dealing with things case-by-case. I wouldn't support the abolition of notability, although certainly it's definition does require constant re-assessment. Personally I believe the solution is public access to deleted pages and their preservation, at least for a relatively long period of time. I know the servers have been having a little trouble lately, and Jimbo may be reconsidering his statement that "hard drives are cheap", but I think this is the only thing that would make a big positive difference with this. The argument that deleted pages "contain defamatory or other legally suspect material" (from Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy#Access_to_deleted_pages) seems a little weak when we have access to all reverted vandalism and deleted sections on existing pages. When I first came to Misplaced Pages and learned of the wonderful "History" button at the top of each page, this lack of an equivalent for deleted pages surprised me more than anything. _ɹəəpıɔnı 22:33, 23 February 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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_4#User:TonyTheTiger.2FObama.27s_first_100_days and Misplaced Pages: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)

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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia traffic. I wonder how many increases hits the wikia gets, as the number of wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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)

Use NOINDEX?

An editor at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#How long would it take for google search to NOT list a deleted wikipedia biography article? is upset that Google indexes a deleted article name here (currently the second Google hit for the person in the title). The editor personally removed it in but Google has not updated their index yet. Should {{NOINDEX}} be added to Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles in order to prevent search engine indexing? Articles are only listed here for a limited time so it doesn't seem a big issue, but some contributors are sensitive about their deleted (or about to be deleted) Misplaced Pages work being high in Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WP:ANI

Returned back to WP:ANI. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron User_talk invitations

I just received an invitation to join this WikiProject on my talk page, something I see many users seem to have received. I'm glad I did (thanks Ikip for the invitation) as I'd not been aware of the project and it certainly seems of interest, but I'm just wondering whether this (invitation posting) is an ongoing thing, or is it part of a recent drive to get more users involved in this for some reason? Are we planning some campaign, or just recruiting for the sake of increasing activity in general? _ɹəəpıɔnı 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not even pretend to represent the diverse 200 plus membership of the Article Rescue Squadron. I don't speak for anyone but myself. No one ask me to ask other editors to join this project, I did it completely on my own. I simply want to rescue articles that deserve to be rescued, and make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, I truly believe in the vision of Jimmy Wales:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

I hope that answered your question. I hope you joined, and you can help us make recently nominated for deletion articles worthy of wikipedia. Thanks for the question. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article AfD Alerts

• Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-02-23/Article_Alerts

Wikiprojects can now automatically monitor AfDs! Maybe this is something we could do? Ikip (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. A lot of the time when people nominate AfD they have the courteousy to notify the creator and/or other major contributors, but other times it totally gets slipped under the radar like some covert assassination. Tyciol (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragons of Summer Flame

Has had a PROD placed on it; can anyone help with referencing and whatnot to prove its notability? 71.194.32.252 (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It already has a link to the NYT bestseller list. I deprodded, that's silly. (I even found a kind of bad offhand reference in an encyclopedia of pop culture, here.)- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag line

User:Tvoz wrote: "Saving the project, one article at a time", I added this to a picture caption: Saving Misplaced Pages, one article at a time. Ikip (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saving Misplaced Pages from what? The ARS is tagging probably as much articles that end up (rightfully) deleted as articles that get kept: perhaps we can add "trying to make Misplaced Pages more useless, one article at a time" as well, to honour all the incorrect taggings? Every good-faith editor is trying to help Misplaced Pages, be it through creating, improving, merging, or deleting articles. To act as if the ARS "saves" Misplaced Pages is not the most cooperative or realistic attitude. Fram (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How many articles examples would that the ARS saved from deletion? I sense from your general tone, that no number would be enough to satisfy you of the utility of this project.

"trying to make Misplaced Pages more useless, one article at a time"

I am concerned, but not surprised, that so many editors who delete are so negative about other editors good faith contributions. I should start collecting negative statments to illustrate the general negative, destructive undertone of many in the delete community, "fan boyism" "cruft" "useless", I could fill pages. It is no wonder that editors contributions have plummeted.

Ikip (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Rescue tag

An editor, who utterly failed to get the {{rescue}} tag marked as canvasing, has now began to remove rescue tags from articles. Is this an issue which should be brought up to a third party? Ikip (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unless they are part of the Article Rescue Squadron, I don't think its right for them to go around removing rescue tags. I fully support this. (You can't remove a rescue tag...thats...thats just wrong...I'm not here long enough to find the policy, but I'm sure it interferes with the afd process). He shouldn't be taking preemptive actions before a consensus is reached.Smallman12q (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think he's got a point - this is a procedural nomination really, which hinges only on the question "is the article redundant to List of the verified oldest people"? The article doesn't need "rescuing" as such. Black Kite 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought any article up for deletion could be tagged for rescuing based on an editor's discression?Smallman12q (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, but the idea of rescuing is surely improving an article so it isn't deleted. This article doesn't need improving, the AfD is only deciding whether it's needed (because most of it is a copy of another article). Black Kite 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if an article is up for deletion...than it certainly can be improved.Smallman12q (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles can always be improved, but in this AfD that isn't the important thing. Anyway, it looks like it'll be kept, so it doesn't really matter. Black Kite

That's good. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Removing a rescue tag should be expanded?Smallman12q (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The template is for articles which are poorly referenced or poorly written. The article in question isn't either and nobody is saying it is; the debate is entirely centered on whether the article is redundant or unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are not the place to create policy. Maybe the AfD should be closed. I agree with Smallman12q that any article up for Afd, at the discretion of the editor can be tagged with Rescue. He also removed the rescue tag again. Ikip (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They aren't the place to write budget legislature, either. They are, however, the place to debate the utility or necessity or practicality of an article; the practice of deleting redundant content is older than VFD.

In any case, speculate as to what I think elsewhere; WT:CANVASS is linked at least three times from this talk page alone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I see interwoven in the comments above which probably should be clarified: one need not be a member of a particular project to add or remove tags from any page.

And further, per WP:BOLD/WP:BRD, if someone Boldly makes an edit (adds a tag), and someone else Reverts (removes the tag), the next step is Discuss, not "re-add". WP:3RR applies keenly.

Belief that someone else is "right" or "wrong", or has such-n-such motivations, or anyone's past actions, all needn't be discussed here. Perhaps just focus on whether it's appropriate to place this specific tag on this specific page? The "why" or "why not" in particular... - jc37 07:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the message, but I am left with the question, how does this help us? You should rewrite your invitation to address that question more thoroughly, you will probably get a better response as a result. Ikip (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that User_talk:Benjiboi represent ARS, but he has left since left the project, after an edit war and a bad block which was reversed. Ikip (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not inclusionists ?

ok I get that you don't have to be an inclusionist to join the ARS, but is it really necessary to publicly declare that you're NOT? Machete97 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press