Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:33, 19 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article Incubator page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Artificial Intelligence

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence

This page was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Time Limit

I'm still sort of new to even the idea of the article incubator, and I noticed that a time limit of three months is being suggested for the maximum amount of time for an article to remain in the incubator. I'm trying to see where the consensus for this time limit has been derived from or where the discussion for this particular limit has been determined. Essentially, I'm calling a bluff here if such a consensus discussion hasn't happened or if perhaps the discussion happened elsewhere (and I'm willing to include off-wiki sources for this too), to point out where that might be.

For myself, I'd rather put the criteria at about a year, simply to urge patience and to note that if you put in a time limit of any kind, it will eventually go. A year is long enough for somebody to put the article away for awhile, ruminate over it, for stuff outside of the wiki to change (more sources to appear), and to generally be seeing something change that impacts why it was put into the incubator in the first place. Three months seems to be a bit short for that kind of change to happen.

At the very least, I'm impressed that a time limit greater than a week was selected in the first place, as many on Misplaced Pages seem to think that a week is enough time to notify the entire universe that there might be a problem with an article and to get it resolved. From that perspective, giving three months seems like an eternity. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See #Non-active incubator pages above. Eclipsed or Gigs can probably direct you towards recent discussions on other pages. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, there isn't consensus about this time limit. How nice, isn't it :) --Robert Horning (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No strong consensus, but lots of opinions ;) Time limit seems like a good idea to me. Especially for articles that enter the incubator via a delete discussion. But of course there should be exceptions. Primarily, if an article was created first in the incubator, never seen mainspace, and is actively being edited by an interested party, then it should be given as much time as needed. What is the definition of Active is up for discussion.     Eclipsed   (t)     14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the current 3 month limit is now perceived as official policy, and has been quoted as such on the Village Pump on a semi-related discussion. It is being given the impression of being settled policy when in fact by your own admission that isn't true. I concur with you that some kind of time limit is a good idea, but I am asking for some kind of consensus to form about this point too. If this three month time limit is to get established into other aspects of Misplaced Pages policy with this very arbitrary description as a precedent, it would be nice to have at least some discussion over what that time limit should be. I'm noting it here in the talk page because this is a recent change and something that wasn't noted explicitly in previous versions of the Incubator introduction. Actions like this, if not protested, tend to become THE WORD on the topic, which is also sort of my point. That the issue is resonating elsewhere ought to suggest that it is something that people are concerned about. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there is a long series of discussions about what to do about time limits. From best I can tell, from editors that support a limit: 3 months was about the minimum, 6 months often talked about, and 12 months sometimes talked about. As this is a WP:BRD process, I doubt there will ever be THE WORD, but rather a loose agreement about general time and removal criteria.     Eclipsed   (t)     17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know what is officially said and what reality often becomes at Misplaced Pages and other wikis. Mind you, I'm not trying to be critical of you Eclipsed either, but rather noting human nature and seeing how policies do become adopted over time. I was de-admined on another project precisely because a discussion like this happened that I wasn't aware of, and due to the fact that no protest occurred it was considered settled policy before I could raise a fuss over the issue. I could give other examples, but as edits accrue on a page of this nature, older stuff tends to become accepted as the gospel truth even if it was a purely arbitrary decision. I've had it happen with stuff that I've written myself, so I am doing some self-reflection here on this too. Pointing to an archived discussion saying that there was a discussion without resolution when the change happened is usually sufficient to re-open the discussion at a later time, if the need arises. I guess that is what I'm trying to do here. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, be as critical as you want, I can take it :) It's really good that you're giving some deep thought to this issue. After my latest experience, and watching the experience of Gigs and others, I'm not sure of best way to proceed. All suggestions welcome.     Eclipsed   (t)     20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There has recently been some discussion on how long an article can remain in userspace before being deleted. I am about to close that discussion as no consensus for a time-limit. It is interesting that a number of people in that discussion suggested that if an article had been in userspace for a long time it could be moved to incubation under the belief that incubation had no time limit. It is a matter of concern that there is a belief in this project that an article that has been in incubation for only three months can then be deleted via a Prod. There are a number of reasons why that cannot happen, including that an article cannot be Prodded after it has been previously Prodded or taken to AfD. The question of what is to happen to articles that have been in the incubator for a long period of time without attention, or that have been evaluated and found not to meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, is one that needs to be addressed by a wide cross section of the community via CENT or RFC or both. I'd be willing to work with those who are familiar with the Incubator process in drawing up appropriate discussion points, as it's possible there are other areas of concern with the process that would benefit from community evaluation. In the meantime I will remove the 3 month limit mentioned on the project page as that would be contentious (and quite a surprise to the wider Misplaced Pages community), and change those articles listed for Prod to being listed at MfD. SilkTork * 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if I contributed to the 'suprise'. I also removed the section lower down on the page about the 3 month time limit. Thanks for your help.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No probs - I like bold editors who move things on, especially when they are also willing and able to engage in discussion when their edits are challenged. Misplaced Pages would not be where it is today without bold editors. I'm going to start a new discussion below on the deletion process. After those here who are familiar with the incubator process have had their input, we can put both the deletion process and the overall time-limit (and any other areas) up for discussion to the Misplaced Pages community. SilkTork * 12:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy userfication

Proposal at WP:Village pump (policy)#Speedy userfication. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for a quick review

Could someone have a look at User:MVO Rambler/Hardy (hill) and comment on its suitability for moving back to mainspace? The article was initially created by a COI editor with honest intentions, and userfied after an AFD. It looks OK to me now, as the requested third-party sources are now present (open question on the sourcing for the LDWA designation, here). I don't want to send the editor through the BITE-mill a second time though, so opinions are welcome. Sorry if this is not the right place to make the request. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This as good a place as any to make the request. I took a quick look at the article, but it is hard to judge notability without having access to the books/magazines cited. There's a web cite on Hill lists in the British Isles, but that is a primary source If there's at least 1 editor who wants to try to improve the article, then I say it's OK to move it into the incubator for a few months or so.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion process

What is currently the deletion process on incubation, and how could that be improved? It appears that the process is that a person assesses an article in Category:Article Incubator candidate for articlespace and then either moves an article into mainspace or puts it into the deletion category. The category page - Category:Article_Incubator_candidate_for_deletion - states that "If the article does not have a reasonable chance of being improved, it should be deleted immediately." But it does not suggest what deletion process should be used. The usual process for pages that are not part of mainspace is WP:MfD. Would it be acceptable to change the process so that after evaluation an article is either moved into mainspace or taken straight to MfD - bypassing the deletion category? Or is there some value in placing the articles in that category and waiting for someone else to take the article to MfD? SilkTork * 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And what is the informing process? Who gets informed of the article's potential deletion? SilkTork * 12:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just looked at some of the histories of the articles in Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/History. There is a cause for concern. Some articles have been moved into the incubator without discussion, such as Amr Adib; and then when these articles have remained unedited for a period of time (and this varies, some as little as one month, with the Amr Adib article it was two months) they are deleted without following any of the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. In effect, Article Incubator can act like a sneaky Article Incinerator - a way to delete an article without following deletion policy.

The deletion process needs to be tightened up so that all deletions follow Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. There should be no summary deletion because an article hasn't been edited for a period of time. That is not part of policy and defies common sense. If an article has been assessed and found not to meet inclusion criteria, then it can be submitted to an appropriate deletion process - which would be either WP:MfD (as the page is no longer part of Misplaced Pages mainspace) or Speedy deletion if the page matched the criteria here. I don't think any other deletion process is suitable, and summary deletion wouldn't be appropriate.

The process by which articles are moved into the incubator needs examining. The current criteria for moving a page into the incubator, are:

1. the result of an AfD discussion
2. an impending speedy deletion
3. previous userification
4. an editor's discretion.

Are these criteria all appropriate? The AfD discussion and previous userification, yes. Impending speedy deletion, possibly. Editor's discretion - I think that's not appropriate. There has to be a more valid reason. By moving an article from mainspace into the incubator that is effectively deleting it, and we need a more valid reason (and process) than an editor's whim. SilkTork * 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there cases of editors moving articles from mainspace into the incubator, without an AfD or CSD to support it? That would be bad, of course. For editor's discretion, that should mean that an editor is creating a new article, and chose to do it in the incubator instead of personal userspace.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     06:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to address this problem by proposing a new CSD for stale incubator articles, it didn't fly, as you may already be aware. I think some articles can clearly be speedied based on previous AfD consensus to delete under G4.

I personally think we should treat incubator articles as subject to the "A-class" speedy criteria as well. The way I see it, incubation is merely deferring normal speedy deletion, so the article CSD should still apply, such as A7, after the incubation period has expired. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot treat all current incubator articles as subject to speedy deletion criteria because not all entered the incubator via a deletion route - some were moved in purely on editor discretion. I have taken a look at the archives, and not only was there no consensus for mainspace articles to be moved into incubation at an editor's discretion (there was continued objection), but supporters of this project declined to have the project discussed by the community at large. There never has been a community discussion of this project, which is fine by itself, but as this project has no consensus it cannot create rules that defy deletion policy. If we remove editor discretion as a route into incubation what routes are left? Borrowing an idea from User:Black Falcon:

• Via deletion process:

1. An article is discussed at AfD and there is consensus (at the AfD or a subsequent DRV) to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
2. An article is PRODed and it is decided to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
3. An article is nominated for Speedy deletion and it is decided to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
4. An abandoned userspace draft of an article is discussed at MfD and there is consensus to send it here instead of deleting it or keeping in userspace

• Via user space:

1. An article created in user space that the user wants an evaluation on / assistance with editing before moving into mainspace

• Via userification

1. An article that had previously been deleted, and then recreated in user space via userification, that the user wants an evaluation on / assistance with editing before moving into mainspace

• Via blanking or non-deletion removal from mainspace

1. Material that had been blanked out, moved to a talkpage, or by-passed in a merge/redirect which a user feels has potential to be a standalone article

I have also noted at least one article that was moved into incubation from Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation after it had been declined there, so that may be another route. Though I think there is also room for discussion on either merging Article Incubator with Articles for creation, or being clear on what articles should be directed to the incubator and which to AfC. SilkTork * 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Declined AfC submissions

WP:AfC seems to be well organised and working well. I note that they don't delete articles that have been rejected - they keep them here. That means that anyone can assess an article, they don't need to be administrators who have the ability to delete; and there is a easy to find record of submissions. The difference there though is that none of the AfC candidates have been through a deletion process. The bulk of incubation articles (AfI - Articles for Incubation?) have been submitted for deletion, and in effect deleted and then put into the limbo of incubation. SilkTork * 13:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Is the assessment process clear enough? Where is the accountability? Who has assessed which articles, and what was their rationale for their decision? Might it be useful to have a simple template, similar to {{GAList2}}, which an assessor can go through and tick or cross, giving comments where appropriate. If failing, the assessor may then give those working on the article some idea of what they need to work on, and perhaps at that point a time-limit might be appropriate. SilkTork * 12:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few I did:

Entry Evaluations (Request for Incubation):

• Female Servants in 18th Century England - This was moved into the incubator as a result of a deletion discussion. I reviewed the discussion, and tried to list the major points for improvements on the talk page, and todo list.

• dANN - This is from a posting on the Rewards Board, with a monetary reward. Various people, including me, have done some work on the project. I created a new incubator article, copied in the various drafts and notes from others, and suggested that if there is a reward, it goes to the Wikimedia Foundation.

• Futuristic Sex Robotz - This is from the Hip Hop project 'requested articles' list. I created it in the incubator, got a WP:REFUND on the old deleted 2006 content, and then started fixing it up. Also did a canvass message announcing the incubation to all the people who voted to keep. (but granted the RfD was many years ago, and many of the users are inactive now)

Exit Evaluations (Request for Graduation)

• Ultra Hal Assistant - Found this at random in the incubator. I'm familiar with the Loebner prize and the various winners, saw some other winners already had pages, so I felt this was definately notable. I edited it to fix promotional and NPOV issues, added a cleanup tag, and then graduated it to mainspace with no comment.

• Lenora Claire - reviewed the article and talk page, and seemed to have a border-line case for notability. Graduated it, and it got WP:CSD#G4 tagged. Discussion centered around there being no changes since incubation. I was unsure if there was an editing history loss from all the page moves, so wasn't sure what to do. Page was ultimately deleted, but could be refunded if there is a case for it.

• Crash (1984 TV series) - reviewed the article, checked out the secondary references, and felt it was at least notable to Denmark. Graduated it, tagged for cleanup, then got a WP:REFUND for the image.

Assessment process is not clear enough. Accountability is random. Would be great to have some type of guidelines/template to follow.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a template maker, but I've had a quick go based on the GA template mentioned above:

{{AIAssessment}}

If the following is pasted on the talkpage:

{{subst:AIAssessment}}

It will produce this:

Article incubation assessment

1. Does the article establish notability of the subject ?

   A. It meets the general notability guideline:

   B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:

2. Is it verifiable?

   A. It contains references to sources:

   B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. There is no original research:

3. Is it neutral?

   A. It is a fair representation without bias:

   B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:

4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
5. Pass or Fail:

Which can be edited with "y", "no", "?" and other marks

Article incubation assessment

1. Does the article establish notability of the subject ?

   A. It meets the general notability guideline:

   B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:

2. Is it verifiable?

   A. It contains references to sources:

   B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. There is no original research:

3. Is it neutral?

   A. It is a fair representation without bias:

   B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:

4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
5. Pass or Fail:

Thoughts? SilkTork * 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. I put up a test, see: Misplaced Pages talk:Article Incubator/Example Article     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I did an eval on R. H. Sankhala, actually more of a pre-evaluation. First checked diffs against current article vs. time of deletion tag, and time of 1st cleanup tags. As there were very little improvements, and no additional references added, I moved it back to the incubator.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Example Assessment

I created a new article (just a stub), and sent it to eval with the new template. Could someone give it a try? See: Wikipedia_talk:Article Incubator/Sock Monkey Ministries Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     19:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Name of project?

This is called "Article Incubator", yet that is what WP:AfC is. This project does not incubate new articles. This project takes articles that have been deemed not to meet Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, but which may have potential to meet that criteria if they are cleaned up or sourced. Is there a better name. And the name might be better following existing format by being called WP:Articles for Foo (Articles for Repair / Articles for Cleanup / Articles in Limbo / Articles for Deletion Assessment / Articles for Improvement, etc). SilkTork * 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AfC has a really nice setup. If we can clearly differentiate what should goto WP:AfC vs WP:AI, that would help in choosing a name (or deciding to keep current name). Articles for Repair / Improvement both have a nice sound.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     21:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I also like Articles for Repair or Articles for Improvement - but they don't quite capture the essence of the situation because that could apply to articles still in mainspace. I am moving toward WP:Articles in Limbo or WP:Deleted articles with non-admin access or WP:Soft deletion. I note that WP:Soft deletion (a process very close to incubation in principle) was suggested over three years ago, but failed to get consensus. SilkTork * 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

New section on project page

I have added the following to the project page. This is an attempt to define which articles should come into the project. I am thinking that it should be confined to those articles which are sent here via a deletion process. That makes it clearer. So "*Via user space" and "*Via blanking or non-deletion removal from mainspace" should be removed as possible routes, and it should be via a deletion process only (and that includes userfication, as material which has been userfied has been through a deletion process). SilkTork * 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Which articles may be moved into the incubator?

Articles may be moved into the incubator:

• Via deletion process:

1. An article is discussed at AfD and there is consensus (at the AfD or a subsequent DRV) to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
2. An article is PRODed and it is decided to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
3. An article is nominated for Speedy deletion and it is decided to send it here instead of deletion or keeping in mainspace
4. An abandoned userspace draft of an article is discussed at MfD and there is consensus to send it here instead of deleting it or keeping in userspace

• Via user space:

1. An article created in user space that the user wants an evaluation on / assistance with editing before moving into mainspace

• Via userfication

1. An article that had previously been deleted, and then recreated in user space via userfication, that the user wants an evaluation on / assistance with editing before moving into mainspace

• Via blanking or non-deletion removal from mainspace

1. Material that had been blanked out, moved to a talkpage, or by-passed in a merge/redirect which a user feels has potential to be a standalone article

Proposed new section

This material, which has been copied and adjusted from Misplaced Pages:Userfication, might be useful. SilkTork * 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the material onto the project page. SilkTork * 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What cannot be userfied

1. Copyrighted material - Userfication must not be used to resolve copyright problems, even where the user who posted the material is the one claiming copyright ownership. Misplaced Pages's licensing requirements and the copyright policy apply to all pages posted anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
2. Material already not permitted in user namespace - Personal attacks, invasions of private information, spam, patent nonsense, and posts by banned users should be deleted altogether.
3. Articles not undergoing deletion process - Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. It generally is inappropriate to userfy incubate an article without a deletion process. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion (AfD) is recommended for this since, unlike proposed deletion or speedy deletion, the community often recommends alternate remedies such as userfication during AfD.
4. Articles for which an AfD discussion is underway - userfication of an article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD is disruptive to the AfD process. The editor desiring to userfy the article must wait until the process has been concluded.
5. File (image or multimedia) and category pages.
6. Material substantially violating the biographies of living persons policy. Potentially libellous material does not belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages. If negative material on a living person is to be worked on to make it comply with the BLP policy, this should generally be done off wiki, and the material only recreated once fully compliant with the policy. Use discretion when considering whether to userfy a biography of a person that has been considered non-notable in a deletion discussion.

Incubation is intended to be temporary?

As articles placed in the incubator are effectively deleted, what is the rationale for incubation being temporary? As far as search engines and the general reader are concerned, these articles do not exist. As far as the servers are concerned, there is no difference between an article stored as deleted or stored in incubation. Administrators can look at both types of article, they still exist - the difference is that while in incubation the material can be worked on to address those issues which brought the material here in the first place, and non-admins can see them and get involved. If it is judged that after a period of working on the article it cannot be improved, or that the article was incorrectly moved into incubation then the article can be submitted to WP:MfD, but other articles can remain here until somebody decides to do the work, or somebody finds an appropriate reliable source. SilkTork * 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed a bit in the CSD RfC, and WP:COLDSTORAGE idea. If we want to keep articles in the incubator long term, we could make a new category for them. Even better would be some (semi)automated way to move inactive articles into the storage category.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     19:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The incubator is comparatively speaking for Misplaced Pages such a new concept that the fallout from even having it around hasn't been demonstrated yet, at least to me. I am against the time limit to be on typical internet time (for Misplaced Pages it presupposes that a resolution to an issue happens over the course of about a week and not much longer). For the purposes of this discussion, let's also talk about perhaps different categories of articles that would be in the incubator and why:

• Articles lacking reliable sources - perhaps a concept is so new that the topic is lacking sources simply because of novelty and age. This is something that perhaps will change in time as people in the outside world start to discover this topic and eventually the reliable sources and other proof of notability will become available and apparent. It may seem notable or original, but there isn't proof of notability at the moment. It is articles of this nature that some timestamp might have relevance to getting removed as something which has failed to gain "proof of notability" over a fairly substantial period of time (I've suggested a year, but longer might be reasonable and should be something worthy of debate) could be argued as completely failing to ever achieve notability.
• Articles are horribly written - Perhaps there are serious POV issues and other problems that prompted a complete restart of the article. Obviously if it gets here for this purpose, there ought to be some significant effort into reorganizing the article. These should have plenty of sources, but it takes time and effort to put these articles together. Perhaps an article is seen as problematic but nobody really cares to do the fix-up necessary to really put it back as a main namespace article. I'm not entirely sure these articles even ought to have a time limit at all.

• Going onto the time limit for notability issues, I definitely think that a couple months is far too short of a time frame. I'm working with one article currently that has been userfied as a result of an AfD discussion and IMHO is a perfect candidate for the Article Incubator. It has already been four months since the AfD and a little over a year since the article was first started on Misplaced Pages. So far, only one rather weak source has come up since the AfD, other than a whole bunch of blogging about the topic and self-published sources. And this is a topic that I consider to be novel (not necessarily proven to be notable, hence the deletion) and potentially is driving away editors from Misplaced Pages by its deletion with about a dozen people participating with the development of the article.

• One thing that is interesting about this particular article is that there has been regular activity on the article and it hasn't been stagnant. Perhaps that ought to be the criteria instead, where an article in the incubator which has been stagnant for a substantial period of time ought to be deleted and article under active development ought to be kept around? It would be interesting to compare articles that graduate to articles that have been in the incubator for some time and see what differences there are to the articles in terms of quality, sources, and editor participation. That is ultimately what would be telling, and something which can only come from experience. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The articles in here have essentially been deleted. We have no time limit on deleted articles. All deleted articles are still on the server and can still be accessed by admins. The only difference between these articles and other deleted articles is that non-admins can work on them. This project could be renamed WP:Deleted articles with non-admin access as essentially it is an alternative holding area for deleted articles - a form of sub or grey deletion. I think it is appropriate to have some form of system for assessing if an article here should be fully deleted, but I don't think a period of non-editing (no matter how long) should be the sole criteria. I think it is appropriate for someone to look at articles which haven't been edited for a while in order to assess if they meet the criteria for remaining in the incubator, but the decision should be based on an assessment against the criteria by which the article was moved into incubation rather than any arbitrary time-limit. What is emerging is that there needs to be some form of criteria for putting an article into incubation rather than conventional deleting. It's worth going back to the origins of the idea - . When it was first muted it was seen as temporary because it was seen as a form of {{Hang on}} or WP:RESCUE - a buffer between being nominated for deletion and the discussion or decision for deletion being made. That made sense - you can't have a hang on that has no time-limit. The notion of a brief period of incubation for articles nominated for deletion makes sense, but a time-limit doesn't make sense once you change it from pre to post deletion. And once an article has been deleted, it is no longer being "incubated" either. This project has not turned out to be what was originally proposed, which was a form of Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit. I feel that WP:RESCUE does that job quite well, and there is no point in having two projects doing the same thing. RESCUE has been going since 2007, and is well established, and I think that is why Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit didn't work, and why the original idea of Incubate didn't take off. What has happened is that Incubate has evolved into a sub-deletion. Instead of articles being saved from being sent to AfD by being incubated for a month, articles are sent to incubation from AfD. But there is no clear criteria for which articles should be sent here from AfD. Can we think of what criteria would be appropriate? And remove the time limit as it is clearly inappropriate for the way that Incubate has turned out. SilkTork * 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the German Misplaced Pages looked at the idea of incubation but decided not to proceed with it. They called it interim storage. SilkTork * 20:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative help in building a new article

My impression of incubate, and I feel that others may share my impression, is that it is a process by which people work together on an article that does not yet meet inclusion/content criteria. It is a sort of community userspace. The project page says:

"Some Wikipedians want to create a new article, but are unsure if it will pass sourcing and notability tests. Rather than work privately in their own user space, they would prefer a more collaborative approach to attempt to build the new article."

I think this aspect of Incubate is worth looking at, as it is worth keeping. I'm not sure, however, that it is appropriate to mix together articles which have been deleted with new articles which are being actively developed. The collaborative help for new articles is much closer to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation than what Incubate has turned into. I suggest that the "collaborative help in building a new article" aspect of Incubate might be better directed to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation, and a discussion opened with the folks there to see how that could be done. SilkTork * 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost ready to open a RfC?

I think we are moving toward opening a RfC on the Article Incubator. The questions to be asked would include the possibility of shutting it down as something that is not working:

Request for Comment on Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator

The Article Incubator has been in operation for over a year now, and there have been a number of questions raised recently about it. There have been concerns that articles are moved into the Incubator where they remain untouched, and are then summarily deleted. The guidelines and processes have recently been tightened up to prevent articles being summarily deleted - pages in the incubator that are no longer required are being directed to MfD, and the guideline that any editor may move any article out of mainspace into the incubator on their discretion has been removed as being against deletion policy. After a year it is time to look closely at the project and decide what should be done:

1. Close it down as being ineffectual and misleading

1. Editors suggest that articles are moved into the Incubator in the belief that they will be worked on by the community to improve them. However, it appears that a number of articles languish untouched in the Incubator, and - until recently - were deleted after being untouched for around three months. It has largely acted as a delayed deletion system. When an article is moved into the Incubator, it is effectively being deleted. It is being removed from general view and doesn't appear on Google searches. The only difference between the Incubator and Deletion is that articles in the Incubator are accessible by non-admins. When people in an AfD suggest Incubate, it is simply a soft-deletion. The article is being deleted, but it appears that it is being sent to a body of Wikipedians who are willing to work on it.

To counter this, there is evidence that people do work on these articles, and some have been successfully moved back into mainspace. Though there perhaps needs to be greater clarity regarding what Incubate is about, and what happens or is likely to happen.

1. Clarify what it is for, tighten it up and possibly rename it

1. When Incubate was proposed, the aim was to act as a buffer between nomination for deletion and the actual discussion or decision to delete. The idea was that articles which might not yet meet our inclusion/content criteria would be given a temporary stay, a form of {{Hang on}}, during which editors could work on it to bring it up to standard. This role, however, is already done effectively by WP:RESCUE, so we don't need two such projects (indeed, another such project, Misplaced Pages:Intensive Care Unit had the same idea and has now been closed). Another aspect of the project was to give collaborative assistance to editors to help them bring new articles up to Misplaced Pages inclusion/content criteria - though this role is largely done by Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation, and it might be more appropriate to allow users to move new articles worked on in user space (and which haven't been previously subjected to a deletion) into Articles for creation rather than Incubate. That would leave Incubate with all articles that have previously been through a deletion discussion (including articles that have been userfied) and a decision reached that the article didn't meet our inclusion/content criteria, but which it was felt could meet that criteria if worked on. Incubate appears to effectively be a community accessible holding area for articles that have been deleted. It could be called WP:Deleted articles with non-admin access or WP:Soft deletion or WP:Grey deletion. A name that conveys what it is. Articles in Incubate have been deleted, but they are accessible by non-admins. But Incubate is not really an incubator, and it is perhaps misleading to call it that.

1. Let it carry on as it is

1. There is no need to make a decision right now. It could be allowed to carry on a bit longer to see how it muddles through. Some attention has been applied to it recently, and processes have been tightened up.

• Clarify, tighten up and rename. I would support a rename to WP:Deleted articles with non-admin access and/or WP:Grey deletion as being clearer. And moving articles being created to WP:AfC. SilkTork * 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest perhaps another option:

• Expand the incubator to include many more articles

  The idea here is to encourage more new users to create articles in the incubator as a place to start articles and work to correct problems before they get out of hand. This can range from a voluntary "suggestion" to create articles in the Incubator (as opposed to starting them in the user namespace) to perhaps even a flat-out requirement that all new articles must start in the Incubator. The mandatory requirement is likely not to get much support from the general Wikimedia community, even though there are already proponents of the concept, in particular regular contributors who have spoken up on the Village Pump about the idea. As a voluntary application, creating articles in the Incubator or moved to the Incubator early could hopefully avoid problems with biting new users and sending articles created by new users through the AfD process. Some tactful editors or admins who see that an article might have some problems, rather than issuing a PROD the could more gently suggest the incubator as a way to attract more attention to the article as well.

This could certainly be at least an option to consider, and more could be worked on the basic concept. The main idea here is also to remove some of the stigma associated with deletion, and articles within the Incubator could still be culled through a deletion process of some kind (MfD seems a bit messy). By opening up the process and making it a genuine incubator of articles, telling a new user that they perhaps ought to work within the incubator can be sold as a way to improve the article and keep the "deletionist cabal" at bay for awhile. While I know there are hard-core deletionists, most people who participate with the AfD process generally have the best intentions at heart and just want a better project even if they are perceived as hard-core deletionists by new users. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, we have a few options:

1. Clarify that the Incubator is indeed delayed deletion, and created a new CSD of some sort with a formal definition of when and how they will be speedily deleted.
2. Clarify that everything in the Incubator needs to eventually go through MfD to get deleted.
3. Adopt a mixed system, depending on how the article hit the incubator in the first place. If it went through AfD, then it might not need to go through MfD for example.
4. Get consensus to apply the A-class CSD to incubated articles after a time limit. For example, if something is still an A7 after 3 months, it can simply be A7'ed.
5. Get consensus to allow PROD on incubated articles.

To me, it seems that both deletionists and inclusionists are against the incubator as it exists right now. And they both have good points.

• The deletionist side of the argument is that we are taking stuff that could normally be speedy deleted or PRODded and by virtue of incubating it, makes it instantly immune to our normal deletion processes, allowing it to stay around for months and forcing a full 7 day discussion on something that would normally be a CSD.

• The extreme inclusionist side seems to actually be a more radical position, that we should never delete anything that isn't a violation of copyright or BLP, and that the incubator should become a "junkyard" of all potentially useful material, without bound or time limit.

• The moderate inclusionists seem concerned that these articles will be swept under the rug and then deleted quietly without notice. I think this concern mainly comes from the lack of communication that the incubator policy from the beginning was to have a time limit that would result in eventual deletion.

My option 1 is what I see as the closest to what the status quo was. I was unable to get consensus for a new CSD, however, to legitimize the status quo. I think that incubation would be much more widely used if people knew that it had a hard time limit. The next option that I think would retain the status quo for the most part while eliminating "out of process deletion" would be applying the A-series CSD to incubated article after a time limit, and MfDing the ones that didn't qualify.

I think the inclusionist position is far too radical, and actually is the most dangerous to the future of the incubator. If the incubator becomes a junkyard, we'll have people who will make it their life mission to get rid of it entirely.

As far as your RfC framing, I don't think you are asking the right questions. I would prefer that some of the options that I have outlined above were in there. I don't see a problem with the name really, after all business incubators and egg incubators all have a time limit. If your egg doesn't hatch in a reasonable amount of time, you throw it into the horse feed grinder. Gigs (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Robert Horning re:Expand the incubator to include many more articles. Yes, that is a possibility that could be discussed. I think, however, that some consideration needs to be given as to why WP:AfC wouldn't be used for creating new articles, and why, instead, articles would be created alongside articles that have been deleted. The problem with mixing new articles with deleted articles is that it is not clear which is which and so there would need to be some differentiation, while with using WP:AfC no such differentiation is needed, as that is already the function of WP:AfC which has a wonderful Misplaced Pages:Article wizard to help people create the article before they are given the option of developing it in userspace, putting it straight in mainspace or submitting it for review - Misplaced Pages:Article wizard/Ready for submission. Can you explain the distinction you see between articles that would go via that route and articles which would come into the incubator? WP:AfC works very well, and I think that some people are confusing the incubator with WP:AfC because they are not aware of AfC and the article wizard. SilkTork * 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Gigs. Some good points raised. I think that if there was some form of definition/clarification of what is happening/ has happened with articles that are moved into the incubator it might address some of your points. The first clarification should be - Are articles in the incubator deleted articles? The articles have been removed from mainspace and placed in sub-Misplaced Pages namespace. They have been deleted as articles (and have gone through an appropriate deletion process) but they are still pages on the Misplaced Pages and as such they need to go through another deletion process to remove them further, but the other deletion process is not one for articles, but for other Misplaced Pages pages. The appropriate deletion process for incubator pages might be either speedy general or WP:MfD. I have tightened up the criteria by which articles can be moved into the incubator, so I don't think that speedy general should apply. But I would welcome you looking closely at the incubator criteria alongside the speedy general criteria to make sure that everything is covered. I would hope that with the incubator clarified and tightened up that it would be used more appropriately and there should be no confusion or grey areas.

The second clarification would be to do with the time limit. This has been mentioned several times, and an explicit comment about time limits would be useful. Incubation has been compared several times to userfication, and that is appropriate - incubation is in effect a community userfication, so the guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Userfication and WP:USERPAGE, particularly WP:UP#COPIES, would be useful. There is no specific time limit mentioned, but it is made clear that Misplaced Pages pages should not be used to indefinitely store inappropriate material. I think it would be appropriate to mention that pages in the incubator are not intended for indefinite storage, and that they can be nominated for MfD. It would be worth again looking closely at the criteria by which we allow articles into the incubator and the expected progress of the article when it is moved here. If the reason is that reliable sources cannot be found right now, would it appropriate to take that article to WP:MfD after a certain fixed time limit has passed? Not that an article can be deleted after a certain time, but, rather, that an article that has passed appropriate criteria for entry into the incubator cannot be nominated for deletion until a reasonable time has passed? I don't like setting any sort of time limit, but I feel that if the entry criteria were tightened up then a reasonable period should be allowed for people to find sources. What is a reasonable period? I think that might depend on the circumstances, which is why a fixed time limit may be inappropriate. If the article was on an intended future album with a release date 3 months ahead, then four months might be reasonable. If the article was on a Vishnu temple that was known to have been written about in a book published in India in 1845, but copies of the book are rare and hard to get hold of, then I'm not sure any limit limit is reasonable - but, equally, I'm not sure of the value of keeping the material in eternal limbo. I would say that if the material on the temple had not been worked on for over a year, and did not amount to more than a sentence or two, then I would !vote for deletion in a WP:MfD. After all, the article could be created easily in mainspace if appropriate sources were found. I think space should always be left for people to make appropriate judgements based on the situation at the time. SilkTork * 10:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian incubator

The Russian Misplaced Pages have taken the incubator idea and appear to have developed it as an aid to newbies to write articles - which is a mix of WP:AfC and userfication. I haven't looked at the background discussions or rules, though it would be useful to examine what they are doing which seems more in line with the notion of "incubation". SilkTork * 20:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's mainly a WP:AfC process and is not really similar to this project other than in name. SilkTork * 20:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The egg

Why did the egg logo go away? Gigs (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As part of tightening up and clarifying this project I am looking at using a more appropriate logo. The cracking egg is suggestive of something new emerging - such an image is compatible with WP:AfC, but not for a project which is about taking care of (semi-)deleted articles. I have used an image of a bin with a no symbol to suggest that these are articles which have been saved from full deletion. I think that a better image can be found, but it'll do for now. The egg image gave a misleading impression of the project as it stands, and was more in keeping with the original intention (which we now know is better served by WP:RESCUE). SilkTork * 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

COI Safe Harbor

1. I have a declared Conflict of Interest, in regards to all my contributions to Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. I'd like to suggest that both the Article Incubator and Articles for Creation be denoted as Safe Harbors for COI contributions. The assessment process in both projects should mitigate the risk of promotion, BLP errors, NPOV errors, etc.
3. Declaring COI Safe Harbors will likely increase the backlog in both projects, especially for assessments. Corporate sponsorship of expert editors to assist with these projects, in an ethical and neutral way, is something that may be viable. See: Misplaced Pages:Reward_board#Corporate Pro Bono Work

Thanks!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• WikiProject Artificial Intelligence articles