Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 53

< Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron
Latest comment: 12 years ago by RJHall in topic drive by template additions
Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 → Archive 60

Proposed page move

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

This is clearly a Wikipedia:WikiProject, so I'm proposing a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems uselessly cumbersome? Projects such as Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue are similarly named. I'd rather not make it harder for newby editors to find us, as this is the only project I am aware of that has been specifically profiled in media reports.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no need for move away from well-established usage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose better to get rid of membership lists and make the process more open to everyone, like WP:3O. Rescue is fundamentally a core function of the encyclopedia and the job of every editor, not limited to a specific interest set. Jclemens (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—No clear benefit and it would impose a hindrance. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reading what others have said changed my mind from not caring, to being opposed. Dream Focus 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the above adresses that this a wikiproject in all but name. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if your statement were accurate (it's not), that doesn't change the fact that there's zero support for it. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
According to the definition on WP:PROJ, so is WP:AFD. Ironic, huh? Regards, RJH (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a patrol like WP:New Page Patrol. There's no uniformity of title for these and this doesn't seem to be a significant issue. Warden (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link. Wow, a new article is being created every minute. I thought Wikipedia was rumored to be declining in the number of editors? The rate still looks pretty high. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I proposed this change years ago, but it never went anywhere either. There have been numerous proposals to change the name.[1] all of them going nowhere. I am happy with the name now though. Okip 19:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose purely on the rationale that no rationale was given for the suggested move and its clear by the other opposes that WikiProject isn't a requirement for a project to exist.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Okip supports it.   —SW— chatter 23:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no point in the change. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag removed

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Bgwhite keeps removing the rescue tag from Tucker Barnes. Please help. CallawayRox (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to consider actually discussing the issue with the user next time, either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. Conflict is inevitable on Wikipedia. When it happens, discuss it with the user first. If that doesn't work, then go ask a wider audience for help. —SW— babble 16:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The instructions say to ask here. CallawayRox (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, its a legitimate AfD discussion, but its also a legitimately tagged article (as sources do exist and potential for rescue is at least possible), so I'll chime in on BG's page.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Richards (author)

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Stephen Richards (author) is in the rescue list, but that page is a redirect to Mirage Publishing, and should not be on the rescue list. Please fix this situation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I see that this is not the only article on the "Show" list of the project to not be tagged for rescue. Please investigate. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The page was an article, but it was not rescued and it was deleted and then turned into a redirect. When it was tagged I think it appeared in a category for articles for rescue, but not on any list anywhere. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles currently tagged for rescue aren't tagged that way!

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This list is what is shown under "Articles currently tagged for rescue" but none of the listed articles are rescue candidates.

  • Crash Music Inc.
    • 'This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
  • Cult Brands
    • This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

its Discussion page says kept in August, 2011.

  • Stephen Richards (author)
    • Article is a redirect to Mirage Publishing, which has no rescue or AfD tags, and its Discussion page says nothing about an AfD or rescue. More details are given above by DreamFocus, but this entry should not be in the list of articles currently tagged for rescue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you clicking on this link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_tagged_for_deletion_and_rescue -- Avanu (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I am clicking on "Show" in the Articles currently tagged for rescue section of this Project. The link you cite gives a correct list, but the place I am looking gives a completely different and incorrect list, which needs correction.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Articles_currently_tagged_for_rescue looks fine to me. You need to clear your cache and reload the page. You are obviously looking at an outdated version. Dream Focus 19:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Project self-assessment?

Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments11 people in discussion

Hi. :) Some of you know me as User:Moonriddengirl. I'm not here in that capacity, though, but as one of my assignments under my contract for the Wikimedia Foundation, as its temporary community liaison. I've been asked to talk to a few projects and see if I can inspire some self-assessment: WMF wants to know what you think you guys are doing well and what might be improved. It would also be good if we can get some dialogue going on how projects can help welcome and nurture newcomers interested in their areas. This information will be compiled into a report to help understand the dynamics of projects and also to generate ideas for best practices for other communities.

If you're willing, I'll set up a subpage so we can talk without overwhelming this one and keep the conversation concentrated in one area. That page will be included in my report to the WMF along with my summary of the conversation (which I will present for your approval before submitting).

Are you guys willing to chat? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm up for it. It should be an interesting debate, because this project draws a range of strong supporters and critics. But on the specific terms of "how projects can help welcome and nurture newcomers interested in their areas," this project is arguably quite important.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It'll just be overwhelmed by the deletionists stalkers who only appear to attempt to counter our efforts and talk trash about us every chance they get. And they already did a study on newcomers showing if their first article was deleted they were less likely to stay and keep editing, it a horrible experience to go through. I've gone through the new page patrol at times and found references to help people out, but if no one does that, it'll get prodded by someone who just rushes through one after the other tagging it with a prod without even doing a quick Google news search first. Different mentalities. Some try to help, while others just have the opinion if its not perfect and up to their standards it should be instantly destroyed. Dream Focus 14:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I am willing to talk but my comments will generally be negative as my impression is that this project, like most projects, is moribund. Warden (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that's part of what Maggie is investigating.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (Ec -reply to Dream) I do have similar fears, Dream. But maybe Maggie can set it up so that our loyal opposition has their own section separate from a comment area limited to project members. This is not a way to exclude their viewpoints, but instead to get the project input which is being requested. There's no question to me that potential good new editors are being discouraged every day by the standard operations of new page patrol and typical prodding/AfD activity. We need to do a better job of identifying those who could be good editors and not souring them immediately.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yours would be one of the first projects I've worked with that might have concerns about detractors. (Evidently, WP:INDIA has them as well.) I can certainly customize to address the situation. While the assessment is intended for members, I can easily set up a section for non-member viewpoints, which will as you note above have a value of their own. :) The basic questions, for those with an interest, can be seen at [3], a project which I don't think is controversial. :D If you think it helpful, I can establish a subpage with a special section. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd expect most projects to have detractors. The typical dynamic is that a project will establish a way of doing things in its topic area. This will then tend to generate conflict with newcomers with different ideas. Examples of this sometimes show up at AFD. Valhalla Vineyards was one case in which a project had developed its own ideas on notability, as often happens. Aircraft design was an especially amazing case, as you'd think the aircraft project would be keen to see an article on this topic. Not invented here seemed to be the problem in that case. Warden (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • By a long shot, the main (and perhaps only) problem that the vast majority of detractors have with this project is the well-known canvassing loophole. Putting a rescue tag on an article buys you at least 2 or 3 keep votes on average, unless the article is particularly terrible. And no one is necessarily saying that the either the ARS tagger or the ARS keep voter are consciously and willfully acting with the intention of cooperating to unfairly influence the outcome of the AfD... but let's just say that it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. And until this problem is dealt with in such a way that the loophole is closed, this project will continue to receive complaints from all over the project. I have suggested various solutions to the problem (including this proposal as well as this more recent one), but my status as an "ARS detractor" has likely lessened the impact of my suggestions. I'll stay away from the self-assessment discussion as it appears outsider views are not welcome, but I sincerely hope that the ARS will use this as an opportunity to take a serious look at the problem rather than continuing to deny that it is a problem. —SW— gossip 16:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You have been asked in the past to demonstrate this loophole problem, but have never done so. Link to some examples. The only problem I see are from people following the ARS just to try to counter what they believe we are doing. [4] [5] Dream Focus 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh gee, I don't know. I just clicked on a random AfD that is currently tagged for rescue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Morris. It looks like User:Trilliumz has tagged this for rescue, and a day later you magically showed up and voted to keep the article (along with a link to an obviously unreliable source, and in conjunction with no improvements to the article by you). Would you have found that AfD had it not been tagged for rescue? If it were any normal editor, I'd probably give you the benefit of the doubt. But, if you look through your voting history it's clear that you vote at just about every rescue-tagged AfD. So, even though Trilliumz may not have added the rescue tag with the intention of getting your vote, he is guaranteed to get a few keep votes regardless (whether he wants them or not) because of the amazingly consistent response that a rescue tag gets from you (and others). Part of the problem is that the loophole exists, the other part is that it is often used. Look, I'm not looking to get into yet another drawn out argument with you about this, so I'm going to stop responding at this point and let you enjoy the last word. I just hope that the rational arm of the ARS takes this opportunity to make meaningful reforms. —SW— express 18:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Snotty, if you want to have a discussion of the Elliott Morris start a separate section, please. After you verify spending 60 minutes research Mr. Morris.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My impression is that this survey of projects is not about the things that Snotty focuses on above, but is related to the problems of new editor recruitment and retention. Its not about "reforming" the ARS. Its about reforming editors like Snotty in a constructive way, frankly. Criticizing the contributions of new editors needs to be handled much better than it is, without degradation of reasonable patrolling, if we want to foster new editor growth. You don't need to be an HR exec to know that. Not only may this be the first project where Maggie finds detractors, it also is one of the very few which has been the subject of coverage on the topics of inclusionism/deletionism and whether deletionism drives away editors.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My feedback is that the main thing that is wrong with this project is that it is a project. Article rescue is the fundamental obligation of every editor, per WP:ATD, and should be recognized as a core encyclopedia feature just like WP:3O, WP:FAR, and the like. The fact that some strident inclusionists tried to make this a rallying point for inclusionism and ended up making it a lighting rod for deletionist criticism has detoured things far too much--this is not a place to fight about what inclusion criteria should be, but rather a place for all comers to coordinate helping ensure that articles meet then when editors either don't follow WP:BEFORE or do it ineffectively, thus nominating an encyclopedic topic for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Jclemens. I would add that I think many of the problems associated with ARS are due to a handful of editors on both sides of the debate who do have some less than ideal editing styles and who focus on ARS when it would be more appropriate to focus on the conduct of particular individuals. I tend not to work through ARS even though I'm a member because many of the discussion here become too acrimonious. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Re ARS history, I just wanted to point out that ARS was founded and initially populated by many strong inclusionists who did bash deletionists. It did not start out as some kind of Obama-esque compromise machine. Initial comments about the project included these from Andrew Lih: "How did we raise a new generation of folks who want to wipe out so much, who would shoot first, and not ask questions whatsoever?" "It’s as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users, like grumpy old gatekeepers, tossing out customers and articles if they don’t comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard." And Kelly Martin: "Wikipedians have become so paranoid about Wikipedia being used as "advertisement" for other websites that they very aggressively purge anything about another web property if there's even the suggestion that the site might gain traffic from being mentioned on Wikipedia" This project, to be clear was founded by "strident inclusionists" whose "rallying point" was inclusionism, even though membership was not exclusive to such folks.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion. —SW— babble 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to Maggie's original question - I say yes, please set up a subpage. People are clearly willing to chat about it. Summarizing it may be difficult, but if you're willing to try... Novickas (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


Yes, a subpage about this project seems like a fine idea. My impression currently of the ARS is that it is currently stagnating without much leadership. Rather than being a psuedo-canvassing project completely centered around the use or misuse of the Rescue Tag, it should be actively teaching research methods and demonstrating leadership in finding ways to help editors improve content. A "mentor" style tag, where an author tags a newly created but perhaps ill-formed article for mentoring might work better toward the idea of rescue, and might encourage editors to work collaboratively rather than in an adversarial way like we often seem to see when the Rescue Tag is used.

I think it would help encourage new authors more if we had a convenient way for them to signal "I'd Like Help With This", rather than the rules-sticklers who see a new article that lacks attribution and smack a PROD or AfD on it and leave the author's head spinning. The attribution/verifiability issue (along with copyright) seems to be the major issue we have with new content, and I think focusing on ways to collaborate and recognize the efforts of editors will earn the ARS much more respect and appreciation than the Rescue Tag alone has done.

At present, the perception is that some of the ARS regulars are just "inclusionists", which is a stupid label, just as "deletionist" is also a terrible label. While some editors have a focus toward one end or the other, I would hope people would just be "improvers" and understand that we need to encourage the growing *and* the trimming, because they both have an important place.

I look forward to your 2 cents on the project also. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if he'd be willing to do it, but I think the ideal person for a leader of the ARS would be DGG; I say this as someone who doesn't see eye to eye with him on everything (though on a lot of things). He has a tremendous amount of quite well-deserved respect from many users (myself included), and he has an excellent ability to discern the utterly indefensible from those articles that could have some potential. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikiprojects don't have leaders. People come and go as they wish. Anyone can see the list of articles at AFD people have requested help on, and decide whether or not to participate. Dream Focus 11:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, if you want to niggle over semantics, I think DGG would make an ideal coordinator. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 17:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hell no. DGG will have to duel me first. And if I win, I'm banning anyone who says anything negative about ARS. To Yemen.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I hear Sana'a is nice this time of year. —SW— express 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah; all the qat you want, 70% of the populace stoned (I've never tried qat or weed, or any other drug, but I enjoy laughing at high people) and huge expanses of beach. Just need to watch out for that minor terrorist problem and that little civil war- but that's mostly further north. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-assessment launched

You guys have presented me with an unanticipated wrinkle. :) I hope that I have sufficiently tailored the self-assessment questionnaire to allow input by others but also to clarify that the main sections are intended for "self" assessment. We may do a general overview of projects - their benefits and problems - later, but this wasn't engineered for that purpose.

That said, I do think that input from outsiders may be valuable as well, since it may lead to consideration of how groups who may be more controversial in nature can best work within the wider community. I'd be really interested in knowing if there are other groups that may be seen as polarizing. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I, for one, would welcome a self-assessment of NPP. I think a lot of people have a lot to say about improving that process, and much of the proposed improvements require the assistance of WMF to implement. —SW— prattle 13:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to do that as well; Kudpung, Snottywong, and I would love some new voices and perspectives. And WIHSD is one of our best essays; I personally love the title, because it definitely gets your attention. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 17:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rescue Tag

Latest comment: 12 years ago44 comments12 people in discussion

I am having a bit of trouble over at Sinfest. Another editor keeps removing my rescue tag (he is at 2RR now). I am not quite sure how to deal with this - I have never seen anybody objecting to an article being rescued. Advice? Guy Macon (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Still seeing rescue tag being repeatedly deleted without discussion, still need advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At 00:41 Drmies insults me rudely.
01:43 [6] I tell him off for it.
00:44, 12 September 2011 he removes the rescue tag with the summary "rm BS tag. speedy keep is where this is going. stop wasting electrons, DF"
Is that the reason why he didn't just wait until the AFD ended in 10 hours? Not bring attention towards that? No reason to remove the tag until the AFD is done. Dream Focus 02:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's some advice: sit on your hands and do nothing. The tag is completely useless since the article is rescued. Guy Macon, it would be nice if you would give a more accurate depiction of the state of affairs--removing the ARS tag is NOT the same as "objecting to an article being rescued": I think you value the tag too highly. Why don't you make yourself useful and call for WP:SNOW, so someone will consider closing the AfD before it's over? It's obvious that it will be a keep. DF, you're wasting even more electrons here. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I closed it as keep - thanks, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you much. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I see multiple users attempting to improve the project so it was easy. Best. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like I missed out on some fun. Guy nominates it for AfD and adds the rescue tag. The good Dr. adds quips like "*DF, every now and then one of these gems comes out of your keyboard that so clearly show you have no clue whatsoever." Oh well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't get why it's an issue to both nominate an article for deletion and tag it for rescue. It seems totally reasonable that someone would feel a subject is not notable but would want other editors to check it out just in case. It's not like AfDs are supposed to be one side fighting against another, with one group wanting to keep everything and the other aiming for the opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, it's not an issue either (I've been tempted to do the same, and have canvassed other editors to defeat my nomination--MQS being my go-to editor on movie topics, for instance). My issue is that needless tagging is needless tagging, and that ARS tag ain't pretty. That's not to say that I understand Guy's edits in the AfD, far from it--I also thought they had withdrawn the AfD, but then they said they didn't, so I couldn't really close it as a SNOW, which was kind of irritating since that only provided more stage time for various ***** [content redacted] (probably including myself). Still, Dream Focus's statement is a thing of beauty. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It is an issue to nominate in an attempt to improve an article , its incorrect use of AFD, as is nominating in an attempt to strengthen an articles existence - ie - nominating from the position of support. Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • And it's a damn lie to imply that I nominated it for deletion in order to improve it. I clearly stated in my nomination that I had not at that time found evidence of notability. To say I had some other reason is assuming bad faith on my part. Yes, I also think it should be improved, but that's not why I nominated it for deletion. I am also getting tired of being told that I am not allowed to encourage other editors to improve an article. Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, Guy Macon, just so there's no bad blood between us: I'm not telling you that you can't ask others to help improve or even save an article. I'm just saying that it's weird for an editor to nominate an article for AfD, call in the ARS, basically withdraw the nomination and then deny that they withdrew the nomination, while all the time the AfD is headed for a snow keep, and then when someone removes the ARS tag because it is no longer useful since SNOW is on the way you come whining on the ARS talk page that someone is removing the ARS tag from an article you nominated for deletion even though the AfD is over and the article will be kept. That is all. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, by definition a rescue tag is asking others to help to improve an article, and thus your deleting of the rescue tag was telling me that I can't ask others to help improve the article. Also, you have been told by several people that nominating an AfD while adding a rescue tag is perfectly acceptable behavior. I also take exception to your calling me asking an honest question "whining" and falsely claiming that I withdrew my nomination. Please be Civil. Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, not sure there's too much more to be said, but two points (1) nominating and putting on a rescue tag is certainly not common behavior from what i've seen, but its theoretically justifiable, and (2) DF was saying in the AfD (as I understand it) that looking at a website to see if it has an "accolades" type section, in order to find sources to show notability (though you'll know they are cherry-picked), is typical WP:BEFORE/rescue activity anyone can easily do.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Guy Macon's AfD/Rescue is an example of a problematic use of the Rescue Tag. If you think it can be fixed, don't nominate it for deletion. As Milowent says above WP:BEFORE has a list of things you should do before you nominate something for deletion. In addition, the Template:Sources tag would have been just fine instead of the hassle of an AfD and Rescue. I think Guy deserves a trout for 'wasting electrons', but really this kind of thing only has a defense the first time as people are learning the process. Doing it more than once is just bad form and bad practice, and we shouldn't be encouraging confusing behavior from editors. Saying "Delete it! No, Rescue it!" is just confusing and the rescue tag has no place being added by the same editor who nominated the thing for deletion unless the AfD has taken a course different than the nomination rationale. I believe Guy was acting in good faith, but otherwise I would consider such behavior disruptive. In any case... just don't do it again. If you want help improving an article, there are methods for that that don't involve putting in article in jeopardy unnecessarily, and won't cause an unnecessary conflict with other editors. -- Avanu (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not rejecting the above out of hand, but seeking other opinions to seek consensus, is it really disruptive nominating an article for deletion and rescue? In this case, I suspected that others might be able to find indications of notability that I could not find. Turns out I was right. Also see my comment below. Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As for adding tags before AfD, there were original research and citations missing tags that had been sitting there since 2008. I think it reasonable to assume that adding Yet Another Tag would have been equally ineffective. Guy Macon (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As was momentarily pointed out by Milowent above, Drmies' conduct in the AfD was clearly out of line and he really needs to work on, as Dream Focus said there, not being a dick. SilverserenC 05:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that Drmies ought to be nicer, it would also help if DreamFocus could look at things and use a little more evenhandedness. It was unfortunate that this situation even came up, because it really didn't have to. It seems clear that the article was well liked, well sourced, and not in need of rescue. I feel it is a bit like the Guy who cried wolf, but with a twist that in this case, the Guy thought he was doing the right thing. DF has a habit of being so far to the pro-Keep side of things that it is understandable that Drmies might think it is pointless to communicate reasonably. While this is a mistaken attitude, it is at least understandable. Probably the best thing here is to just learn from each other on this and move on. There are better places to focus our efforts. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me? Did you read the comments? I had someone insult and taunt me, rather immaturely. It is never understandable to act in such a manner towards others. And there is no pro-Keep side of things. Dream Focus 10:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I had no way of knowing it was well liked when I nominated it: It was running around two to four minor edits to the article per month and had a grand total of ten talk page comments from March of 2009 to the September 2011 AfD nomination.
As for it being well sourced, did you look at the state of the article when I nominated it? ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Sinfest&oldid=448567206 ) The sources consisted of three one-line passing mentions in salon.com, sfgate.com and an apparently imaginary foreign language magazine allegedly called Nemi. (Wikipedia say Nemi is a comic strip, not a magazine.) Those were the only third-party sources I could find and they did not establish notability. Neither did a web search. Other than those three cites, every reference was to something published by the author of the webcomic. I don't see how you can describe that as being "well sourced." You can say that, given what we know now, I should have foreseen the future, or that I should have carefully crawled a website that clearly can never be a reliable source when I searched for evidence of notability, but at the time I submitted the RfD I really could find zero indication of notability. Either that or you can assume bad faith and assume that I lied when I gave my reason for nomination. I stand by my decision. It was reasonable given the only information available to me at the time.
And I still have not received any advice as to what to do when someone repeatedly deletes a rescue tag without discussion. Guy Macon (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just revert them and explain they are being disruptive. If it continues post here for help. If someone believes it should be there, that is their right, and no one has the right to remove it. Dream Focus 10:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Guy, if someone removes a rescue tag, first review the situation. If it is again a weird situation like yours, don't re-add it yourself. If you feel it needs to be there, ask for someone else to add it, and ask for them to add a rescue rationale. Just as Drmies removed it "without discussion", you added it without even adding a edit summary. However, let's consider a more run-of-the-mill situation where someone has removed the rescue tag.
If they left an edit summary, ask them about it in the Talk page. If they didn't leave an edit summary, then you can revert them back without it really being a problem because that kind of edit is typically considered just plain disruptive, i.e. editors should explain their actions. Unlike Dream Focus above, I do see instances where a Rescue Tag can be legitimately removed. If an article has received numerous Keep !votes and is sure to be saved, and then a rescue tag is added, it is just a frivolous use and shouldn't be there in the first place. Rescue Tags are for articles that REALLY need rescue, not just a casual throw into whatever AfD we want.
If an editor didn't leave a Rescue Rationale as requested by the Tag, then it becomes more difficult. Editors who add the tag should try to either lead the way by telling how people can rescue the thing (which is usually self-evident by the AfD nomination wording), or they should ask for help in writing a rescue rationale. Either way, just tossing the tag in, and walking away is not a way to win friends and influence people. If the tag is removed under these circumstances, as Dream Focus said, you might come here and ask for assistance, and editors here could help in looking over the situation, maybe helping to write a rescue rationale, or just plain save the article via rewrites or finding sources, etc.
In any case, avoid edit warring, and focus on discussion. Don't let it turn into a war of personalities either. Focus on the goals of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia with quality articles. People who nominate things for deletion often have that same goal in mind as do those who advocate rescue. If you focus on that, rather than personal conflict, it will tend to keep the situation more professional and editors can leave the situation more likely to work together better in future encounters. Good luck -- Avanu (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Nominating an article for deletion is what you do when you believe an article should be deleted, i.e. the subject of the article is not notable. Nominating an article for rescue is what you do when you believe that sources exist to establish the notability of the subject, i.e. the article should be kept. Doing both simultaneously is either a sign of schizophrenia, or the result of a misunderstanding of AfD and/or rescue tagging. Also, rescue tags do not have some kind of sacred status above any other maintenance template. If there is a disagreement on the applicability of the rescue tag on a particular page, it can be removed by anyone (preferably with an explanation on the talk page or the AfD page). If there is consensus against using the tag on an article, then it shouldn't be applied to that article. When using the rescue tag in an unusual or otherwise atypical situation, one way to prevent misunderstandings is to clearly explain the reason you tagged the article for rescue on the AfD page, per WP:ARS#Instructions. —SW— comment 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything wrong with Mr M's action. Yes, it was atypical, but he's explained it here. As I see it, he was trying to bend over backwards to be fair. He hadn't found good sources but was willing to let this project know so they could have a go at it. Scraping barnacles off the Good Ship Wikipedia is good, and asking for outside input as to whether one particular article is really just a barnacle is good too. WRT removing the tag during an Afd, I'd rather not see that happening till the discussion is closed. It might end up being closed as no consensus, in which case it could well be re-nominated sooner or later, or last-minute delete votes could be cast. Novickas (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Re "Nominating an article for rescue is what you do when you believe that sources exist to establish the notability of the subject, i.e. the article should be kept", there are three possibilities. If I knew that sources existed, I of course wouldn't have nominated it as a AfD on the basis of not being able to find a source. If I knew that sources didn't exist (it is often the case in my area of expertise - engineering - that I really do know this) I of course wouldn't have added a rescue tag and wasted people's time. But what about a case like this, where I am completely ignorant about the topic, I have done my absolute best to find evidence of notability, and yet I suspect that someone who does have expertise will know where to look? (This turned out to be the case, BTW). Don't I have a responsibility in such a case to do everything I can to find someone who can shoot down my AfD? Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No, if you believe that someone with expertise can produce a source, then necessarily you believe that sources exist, and therefore nominating the article for deletion is not the way to go. AfD is not cleanup, it is not supposed to be used to motivate people to improve the article in 7 days or pay the consequences. If you believe that an expert could produce a source, then the correct action is to go find that expert. You could have posted here at WT:ARS before nominating it for deletion, you could have asked someone at WP:COMIC, you could have even asked at the reference desk or something similar. AfD is for deleting articles, not for attracting the attention of experts (even though that is sometimes the result). You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion with the hope that the nomination fails. —SW— communicate 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone who nominates an article for deletion should be hoping that it fails, because that means that the article was either improved or it was shown that the subject was notable, which adds another good article to Wikipedia. No one should be hoping that AfDs succeed. SilverserenC 19:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot for a moment that I was posting on the uber-inclusionist talk page. Perhaps "hoping" was a bad choice of words. Let me rephrase in such a way that my words can't be twisted: You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion if you suspect that the nomination will fail, or if you suspect that it is possible to improve the article such that it complies with WP's policies on article inclusion. —SW— comment 20:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to type something to that effect, but yes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course, my original wording is fine. There is nothing wrong with hoping that AfD's succeed, nor does it imply that the person who is hoping for them to succeed is also hoping that Wikipedia fails. The success of Wikipedia is not judged on the sheer quantity of articles it contains, it is judged on the quality of those articles. If a successful AfD makes WP's article count go from 6,827,352 to 6,827,351 but gets rid of an atrocious article on Pokemon paperweights, then I will certainly be hoping for the AfD to succeed. —SW— talk 20:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion if you suspect that the nomination will fail, or if you suspect that it is possible to improve the article such that it complies with WP's policies on article inclusion. I disagree with that. Often enough I have sent something to AFD because I could not find sources, only to discover that the google-fu of others was better, or, god forbid, someone actually has a book on the subject. If I had the belief that I could not find sources, and doubted that notability could be establish, but the article was decent enough, I could (and might in the future) send it to afd with a rescue tag to get some more eyes on it, much the same way as projects keep their own lists of articles up for deletion. I pretty much always suspect a nomination might fail, since they do, sometimes when it seems blindingly obvious that they shouldn't, and it is always possible that someone will find a way to improve an article so that the afd fails, since that happens, too. The list of things that someone could do instead of doing the thing they did do is infinite, and we're supposed to assume good faith. And, Snotty, with all due respect, the "uber-inclusionist" kind of snide remark has gotten to be very old, and isn't helpful. What I can only characterize as your continued harping on how we should act is really tiresome, and I wish you'd stop it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Far be it for me to suggest that we're basically saying "consider WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE" in different words. It does happen that sometimes people find sources during an AfD, but you should find alternate methods of cleanup if you think the sources are out there; I can demonstrate where I have done so if necessary, lest you think I'm all talk and no action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There's a big difference between saying "I looked for sources and couldn't find any, I don't think it's notable so I'm going to nominate it for deletion" and "I looked for sources and couldn't find any; I'm pretty sure there has to be coverage in reliable sources out there, but I don't know where to find it. I'm going to nominate it for deletion and hope that someone else finds sources in the next 7 days." For an inclusionist wikiproject to suggest that the latter is appropriate is mind-boggling to me, considering that this type of behavior could very well lead to articles about notable topics being deleted. Why do I get the feeling that just about anything I post on this page will get an argument from someone? —SW— spout 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I can think of one reason. Neither of the two pseudoquotations above match my stated position, and appear to be examples of either a false dilemma fallacy or a straw man fallacy. It's very tempting to argue with someone who does that. BTW, I am an Incrementalist, not an Inclusionist. Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to hurl stones at strawmen. SW, the project may have lots of inclusionists, but it's not an inclusionist project--I'm a member and lean more to the deletionist side of things. The project has no voice, what we have here are the opinions of individual editors. I think Guy Macon acted in good faith, presented a reasonable rationale, and I agree with him.

If I think sources are out there, I look for them--I have access to a uni library, so I'm not limited to google, and generally speaking I'm pretty good at research. If I can't find sources, sometimes I ask others, sometimes I just tag and move along, sometimes I send and article to AFD. If I send something to AFD, sometimes others find sources I couldn't, sometimes my reasoning as to why an article should be deleted is faulty--coming to consensus about whether or not an article should be deleted is, after all, afd's purpose (the purpose is not to delete article, but to discuss whether an article should be deleted). I'm hardly perfect, and I acknowledge that. You shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion if you suspect that the nomination will fail, or if you suspect that it is possible to improve the article such that it complies with WP's policies on article inclusion. I'm about to nominate an article soon that I'm pretty certain will fail in AFD--I believe the subject isn't notable, but I expect to lose the argument because it's been through AFD before and the article's subject is fringy, and those are generally tough to move through an AFD successfully. And as I said, when I send something to AFD because I can't find sources, I alway suspect that some sources may be found to establish notability, even though I believe there are no such sources, because I'm not always certain that I am right, and I try to be open to the arguments of others. So I do not see a tension between sending something to AFD that I believe cannot be sourced and also tagging it to get others, even those most scurrilous of all wikipedian, the members of ARS, involved in the discussion. Things are not always cut and dried.

And, The Blade of the Northern Lights, my record's readily available lest you think I'm all talk and no action. If you think I don't follow WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE appropriately, please let me know. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not saying you don't... I tend to assume people have unless presented with rather clear evidence to the contrary (I could name one really bad example, but I don't want to pillory the editor in question. Suffice to say I felt rather embarrassed for that editor). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

*The rescue project is broken and is getting disruptive imo. What a load of crap this thread is from Macon and anyone that agrees with his tedious template adding and disruptive AFD nomination. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC) its " a self evaluation" - Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(Off2riorob, yes, it's a self-evaluation, but there's a section for non-members to make comments --Nuujinn (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
The Blade of the Northern Lights, I likewise try to assume the best of everyone, and I would say there are a small number of editors on both sides of the discussion whose conduct in this area is questionable. Off2riorob, we going through a self evaluation, I'm sure your comments would be valued in that process. I'm sorry you think that this discussion is a load of crap, and I would ask you to assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that. I'll hopefully comment on in the non-member section at some point to give you an outsider's perspective. Jokes and nastiness aside, I've seen the ARS do some good work (SemEval was when I first saw them in action, and I thought it did exactly what it was intended to there), so it's not black and white like some would have us think. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


So, Guy, does this all this help?  :) At least you spurred discussion and interest in the ARS project, even if everyone has a bit of a different opinion. -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It helps a lot. It's always an interesting experience asking for help on Wikipedia. You see, I really try to do the right thing, follow the guidelines, etc. Some folks treat me as if that was true, and those comments really help. Then there are the comments that sort of imply that I am deliberately trying to be disruptive or pull a fast one. Not helpful at all. Part of the problem is temptation; when I read something like "What a load of crap this thread is from Macon and anyone that agrees with his tedious template adding and disruptive AFD nomination" I am really tempted to fire up the flamethrower and tell that person exactly where to stick it. The worst case is when (not here - other places on Wikipedia) everyone gangs up and nobody is even willing to consider that I might have made a good-faith error or that calmly explaining it to me would result in my not repeating the error. Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, we can be prickly. In fairness, Off2riorob did strike that comment. I confess, as an old usenet junkie, I've got asbestos undies, but flamethrowers turn into boomerangs around here. If you're not familiar with the various noticeboards, that might be worth looking into, as asking questions on those often gets one the help they need. It is never a bad idea to ask questions. --Nuujinn (talk)

Using Template:Rescue at DRV?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I have tagged a userfied article with {{rescue}}, but I don't know how to link to its discussion at WP:DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 14).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Its OK Tony I think you canvassed this enough already with your posts to AN and REFUND, but good effort. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't know if you know the meaning of the WP:CANVASS, but attempts to get a deleted page userfied are in no way related to the term. So if your objective is to condescend find a proper reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed I do know what canvass says and loudly shouting at multiple high traffic boards that you want the article for a DRV and (effectively) that you want is now is a very effective way to get people to come and see what all the fuss is about and you wouldn't be the first to mistake tagging an article for rescue to be the same as asking for some extra keep votes - although the nice folks here so far seem to be able to avoid the temptation. So, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could still be a pig with a plastic beak and flippers but it could also be a duck and perception is just as important in a collaborative environment as intent sometimes. And you did notice that I left my comment after I voted to undelete didn't you? Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Loudly??? Maybe impatiently. I posted at AN. Then, I discovered REFUND, which I don't believe I have ever used before. Recent responses to my query at AN have been rather slow, so I was glad to find a more efficient forum for my request. I wanted to get it posted while I was thinking about it and thanks to prompt action, was able to. P.S. I can't stand it when people have nothing intelligible to say and start talking like a duck.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • While I don't think DRV is a good place for the ARS, I also don't see that neutral notifications at high-traffic noticeboards is necessarily a CANVASS violation. Off the top of my head, cherry picking favorable talk pages is more likely to be. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't really think of a good reason why a rescue tag would ever be used for a DRV discussion. In an AfD, a rescue tag is basically supposed to be saying "hey, come help find sources so that this article can be kept." A DRV is not about finding sources, but is a discussion as to whether the AfD discussion was correctly interpreted by the closing administrator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • yeah, drv is not really for rescue in any normal case, including this one. that deletion discussion wasn't the world's best, but few are. i've added some cites to the article, there's a good case for notability as the DRV seems to be finding. However, its easy to see why he got chopped, the normal football player Afd guys (and for most sports) try to follow general rules, and practice squad placement usually doesn't cut it (unless I'm missing something).--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged Neofeudalism/New feudalism

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think Neofeudalism can be kept using the secondary sources that rely on Shearing's (primary source) use of the term. (There are other uses outside criminology, but AFD participants said the article was too broad). These secondary sources, as currently used in the article, include Baker, Huggins, and Zedner. There are several more, which I will continue supplying as time permits. Where I think Article Rescue Squadron participants may be able to help: concepts from the larger blockquotes can be summarized to clarify the sources' meanings. I believe all these larger blockquotes are ultimately permissible to present the sources' reasoning in their own words, but this question can be delayed for the resident copyright experts until after AFD, so I have removed the quotes for now. At this time, help summarizing the quotes would be appreciated. DeliciousBits (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks like a specialized debate over how notable the term is in its field of study, I'm not sure I can be much help myself, but I wonder if the scholars are saying the term doesn't deserve a mention *anywhere*, or their main beef is that the article is poorly written and overblows the importance of the topic to scholarship?--Milowent • talkblp-r 11:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for having a look, Milowent. It appears the question of notability is settled, particularly after the inclusion of Les Johnston's article saying that Shearing's concept of neofeudalism "justifiably has been an influential one". The recurring concern at AFD now is those fair-use blockquotes, the substantive content of which could be summarized as freely licensed text. Of course, I'm not terribly eager to attempt this summary while the page could still possibly be deleted, and neither is anyone else. An interesting set of conflicting incentives there, which I suspect occur systemically throughout AFD. DeliciousBits (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow! 101 Articles to be rescued?

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

With 101 articles to be rescued, whoever knows how to post a message on Rescue Squadron talk pages should ask for help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess one has to be a bit more selective in what articles to rescue now. At least I do. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. That is an awful lot to go through. One editor seems to be tagging a lot of things. But a lot of them are things that could be saved, with a few hopeless ones I've seen as well. Dream Focus 22:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Procedurally, who can post a request for help on all the ARS member talk pages? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Whenever they feel like it, they check the list and pick something that interest them. Doing it on the talk pages might count as canvassing, I'm not sure, but whether it is or not someone will claim it is and whine about it. There are always more articles out there than we can look through. Those that someone believes can be saved, are tagged for rescue, to ask for assistance. I've been hitting a few at a time and going through it. Dream Focus 00:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like most were tagged by User:Northamerica1000, who has been particularly active in AfD the past week or so. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What was up with that horrible "save notable topics" billboard. It made me crave a vanilla ice cream cone with no toppings.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the reason for so many articles discussions on the list is because there's a recent slew of badly chosen AfDs that have been made. SilverserenC 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry Silver seren--I disagree. I think Dream Focus actually hit the nail on the head. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
      • A significant amount of them already had a number of Keeps before this. SilverserenC 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Then why call in the squad? I assume that with 'this' you mean the slapping on of ARS templates. Badly chosen AfDs don't need help: they will be closed as kept. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Agreed on some of them. Others, even if they are bad nominations, they can still be improved to further shore up their notability. All articles really can have that and almost all of the ones on the list could do with better references. SilverserenC 23:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Sure, but we have other templates (and associated categories) for them--{{unreferenced}} etc. A redundant ARS template clogs up the ARS page and rubs some editors the wrong way--I don't mind it so much, and I have nothing against the squad per se, but if it is needless then it's just wasted effort and electrons. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of articles likely to be rescued

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

These articles are likely to be rescued. I have listed articles with significant references now included. Feel free to add to this list.

  • Joseph Mulder (1658, Amsterdam – ca.1728, Amsterdam), a Dutch Golden Age printmaker
  • Paul M. Wright author of the first book on database forensics

Additions?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put things into categories. All of the AFDs for anime composers [7] could be in a MUSIC or Anime category. Those for artist, economics, authors, locations, etc. could each have their own. Make it easier to sort through, and people could find something they are interested in, or do all related things at once. Dream Focus 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
With 116 articles on the list, we need some organizing. Perhaps the above is a good idea, but a lot of work. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
One could perhaps add a simple field to the template that would allow us to indicate when some non-trivial, constructive action has been taken to improve an article. For example, if I add a couple of references I could add a "|ref=yes" flag. Or it could be a simple counter, such as "|edits=3", or even "|agree=yes"/"agree=no" when a second person confirms the rescue-ability. That could then be reflected by the ARS category "sort order" in which the article is organized. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've closed Joseph Mulder (nomination withdrawn). On a side note, the list might be less extensive if y'all find a friendly admin and ask them to see if there are any SNOW keeps, withdrawn nominations, etc. I think there are a few more on the list (there may even be possible non-admin closures there, and some of you who haven't edited the article or weighed in at the AfD could have a look--Milowent? you have plenty of experience and heaps of common sense), but I'm not a very friendly admin, plus, I have to close them by hand since I can't do it with Mr.Zman, for some reasons.

    Again, though, I want to say that your list wouldn't be so long if people didn't add ARS templates to obvious keeps like Joseph Mulder, or if you removed the template once it was clear where something was headed. Rightly or wrongly, the template turns people off and it makes working on the list much more cumbersome and uninviting. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm framing your compliment, if I see something that's so clear that I can close without rousing controversy, I will do so. Its not often that so many articles are tagged (we've been averaging less than 20 for some months now).--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Another aspect to consider is that there are nominations that don't actually list an argument for deletion, in which case the AfD can be closed by a non-admin (especially for clear cases) as a speedy-keep under WP:Speedy keep reason #1.  After such a speedy-keep, the nomination can be improved and a new AfD speedily re-opened, but this has a benefit of improving the quality of the nominations, such that Wikipedia editors will be able to spend less time in preparing AfD responses.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File rescue

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are only articles open for rescue, or can files being nominated for speedy deletion, but in use in Wikipedia articles also be tagged for rescue? --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Since any editor (except the author) can contest an inappropriate speedy by simply removing the tag, I'm not sure what the benefit to that would be. Contested speedies go to AfD, and then the rescue tag could certainly be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It turns out that the issues with 3 files in question have been resolved, but thank you for your information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper and appropriate use of rescue tags is functional and fair

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Wikipedia. It's not a Wikipedia policy to provide a rationale on AfD pages when a rescue tag is added to an article, and many editors feel that the tags are self-explanatory. Rescue tags provide options to search for reliable sources within the context of the article, while the "article being considered for deletion" tag does not. This provides users with the option to search for reliable sources directly from the article, which has higher functionality compared to users having to go to the AfD webpage for the article and then search from there.

Conversely, perhaps users that continuously hastily refer articles to AfD without checking for reliable sources should follow the advice presented above this remark about "slowing down". Those editors continue to move quickly compared to "most of us", as stated above. Please refer to the AfD discussions for articles with rescue tags, which I often provide rationales within. While the provision of a quantification of my edits undertaken (stated above) is statistical, it has nothing to do with adding a rescue tag to articles in which the topic is believed to actually be notable and worthy of rescue. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Added this to the article...

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Rationales for rescuing articles

Why bother rescuing articles? Here's some reasons why notable topics are worth preserving:

  • Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that the Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
  • Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism).
  • It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.

This serves to summarize key points in the article/project page, and provides further rationale to rescue articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a project page. Anyway, there is no logic in this. Notable topics are worth preserving because they are a) notable (a truism), b) can be merged and c) the editor may be a newbie and believes the articles is notable. Whether the original author believse the topic to be notable or not, and whether the original author is a newbie or not, should have no impact on tagging an article for deletion, and on rescuing it. Deletion and rescue are dependant on the notability of the subject (and a few other things like copyright violations and so on), not on whoever created, edited, or tagged the article. Decent articles on notable topics are worth preserving because they improve and complete Wikipedia. That should be the only consideration. Fram (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. Notable topics are worth preserving, and is congruent with building and improving Wikipedia. Adding rescue tags to articles that are actually notable topics is functional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This segment of the discussion page is about information added to the project page, "Rationales for rescuing articles", listed above. Summaries to conclude are logical. There is logic in summaries. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This data was previously deleted, under a rationale that it's unrelated to the content in the page. This data is obviously quite related to the focus of the Article Rescue Squadron, and provides further clarification. It's slightly concerning that the information is blanket deleted under a single, basic rationale of not being whatsoever correlated with the content of Article Rescue Squadron. Perhaps this is one of the shortcomings of Wikipedia - anyone can come along and delete large segments of data, stating a basic reason for doing so without being specific and further qualifying large deletions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

::*I agree. Notable topics are worth preserving, and is congruent with building and improving Wikipedia. Adding rescue tags to articles that are actually notable topics is functional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, are you now agreeing with yourself? While less worrying than disagreeing with yourself, it still is a bit bizarre... Fram (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Which is basically the same on the other side of course, "anyone can come along and add large segments of data, stating a basic reason for doing so without being specific and further qualifying large additions." Anyway, I provided my logic above (and note that I deleted one more entry, which you at first reintriduced and then removed yourself). Your reply, "Summaries to conclude are logical. There is logic in summaries." has more words than meaning though. If you are trying to say that it is logical to end a long page with a summary, then basically this is not the habit on Wikipedia (the summary is at the top, in the lead), and more fundamentally I don't see how your additions are a summary, they come across as your personal interpretation. The current list is much better than the one you had added previously [8], but much better isn't necessarily good enough or appropriate. Fram (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Editorials can go on their own pages. Here you can't pretend to speak for the whole project without reaching consensus. Rationales for not deleting articles are already covered in a more refined manner at WP:ATD. Ergo, I removed the opinionated additions by user Northamerica1000. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

drive by template additions

Latest comment: 12 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Hi , User:Northamerica1000 appears to be doing a lot of drive by adding the rescue template he's added 42 rescue templates in a single day (so far).in just over two hours actually - that is approximately one every three minutes - seems a bit excessive for a single user? Three minutes to comment in the AFD, to template for rescue and to investigate the article subjects notability and the coverage of such in reliable externals? Is there some kind of rescue drive underway? I am also seeing rescue templates being added and removed without any improvement to the article, isn't it a requirement/objective of adding the template that the article is improved and not only kept at the AFD discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is looking to me to be disruptive Mtking (edits) 11:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - It's not a Wikipedia policy per se to provide a rationale for every rescue tag, as some editors feel that tags are self-explanatory. Adding rescue tags is not disruptive. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) There's no drive of which I am aware. Have you asked Northamerica1000 about this? It is certainly good form to improve the articles, that's what the check list is for. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
He just blanks his user page when a question is asked, I did start to revert his additions, however he is reverting them back again and I don't want to get into an edit war with him. Mtking (edits) 12:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The size of the category has become unwieldy with these additions. I don't know about others, but I am less likely to try and find an article to rescue when the list attains this level of bloat. It's more productive just to review the AfD list. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No drive by tagging

Please refer to the AfD discussions for the articles that I tagged for rescue. I overlooked the matter of commenting and/or voting prior to rescue tagging on some posts in error. This is now not occurring at this time, and rescue tags are only being posted after comments and/or votes at AfD discussions. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I glanced at some of your recent contributions, looks pretty reasonable to me even if I don't agree with all of them. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
40+ a day is still excessive, he should fix them rather than leave them for others. Mtking (edits) 12:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In the 1 Hour 45 mis to 12:00 UTC he added 22 Rescue tags and commented on 8 Afd's. Mtking (edits) 12:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Please see my comments below, at "Reasonable rescue tagging". It's not a Wikipedia policy per se to provide a rationale for every rescue tag, as some editors feel that tags are self-explanatory. See more below. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • He is also adding rescue templates to articles that have already been improved and are already leaning toward a keep consensus on the AFD - thereby creating the situation where the template is added and the article not improved between its addition and its removal - this imo demeans the templates purpose and value. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - It's not a Wikipedia policy per se to provide a rationale for every rescue tag, as some editors feel that tags are self-explanatory. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - There's no policy limiting rescue tagging in Wikipedia, it's not "excessive" to add rescue tags to articles when the person adding them believes the article's topic to actually be noteworthy and notable, and adding rescue tags to articles that have been improved is not forbidden or against Wikipedia policies whatsoever. Adding rescue tags to articles listed in AfD is appropriate, not demeaning to the rescue tag template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It often seems that AFD tags are added to an article in a drive-by manner without much thought and Twinkle makes the process quite easy. I have noticed an admin closing AFDs at a remarkable rate - several per minute - and suppose that he is using some sort of scripted tool to do this too. A rescue tag seems comparatively innocuous, being secondary to these primary processes and easily ignored. What's the problem? Warden (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The user above, Warden, makes a significantly valid point in the purpose of rescue tags compared to the manner in which articles are often bluntly referred to AfD. The "article being considered for deletion" tag doesn't provide users with an option to search for sources, and users have to go to another web page, specifically the AfD for the article to easily access these sources. Rescue tags provide these links for source searching right in the article that is being considered for deletion, which is just. Furthermore, it does seem that oftentimes AFD tags are added hastily to articles without the required source search stated in section "D" of WP:BEFORE. Finally, while it's suggested on the rescue tag template page that the addition of a rescue tag to an article can be supported by arguments and source citing in the article's AfD, it's not an actual Wikipedia policy to do so— it's optional. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Is the editor tagging articles that are clearly unsuitable - attack pages or the like? If not, then even tho having 42 or whatever probably exceeds the project's current resources, I don't see anything disruptive about it. (The tag goes away in a week anyway.) It's a collaborative project, there's no requirement that the tagger follow thru on the entire process of editing the article and !voting. Tagging for rescue just means 'I think this topic might be notable, could you-all take a look and see what you can do.' Novickas (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Mass tagging unnecessarily is not beneficial to the rescue project or the respect for the template. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with his tagging. If he sincerely believes the article can be improved and saved, he has the right to do so. I have visited the majority of those he tagged when we first had over a hundred listed, and found they were something that could be saved. Dream Focus 17:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Still at it. Mtking (edits) 07:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Recent category bloat has made this project hopelessly ineffective as a means of rescuing articles, and certain members have made it increasingly rabid in terms of inclusionism. I think can be more effective just by screening the AfD lists, so I've decided to drop out. Sorry, and good luck. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, added this to the project page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rationales for rescuing articles Why bother rescuing articles? Here's some reasons why notable topics are worth preserving:

  • Notability of articles is sometimes very subjective. For some, the US presidential candidate John Anderson might be a noted person; others who don't live in the United States might feel that the Scottish scientist John Anderson is more prominent.
  • Instead of deleting articles altogether, they can be merged with other articles (see Mergism).
  • It can be discouraging when articles created by first-time contributors and newer users are deleted without (in their opinion) a good reason. In their view, at least, the subject matter is noteworthy.

This summarizes rationales for taking the time to rescue articles that cover notable topics. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is the same text you added to the previous section as well...
Although your intention above is clear, the way it is expressed just muddles the issue. Wikipedia has several guidelines for Notability, foremost among them is the General Notability Guideline, along with the specific guidelines for other things. Establishing notability is usually a clear process, and while there might be some subjectivity, its really not that subjective. DreamFocus and I had an occasion recently where an actress's page was deleted despite some very good arguments for keeping it, because she mainly met a secondary guideline and not the general notability guideline. To me, she was a unique borderline case and should have been kept because we had sourcing and she was "good enough" to keep in my opinion. But in the end the consensus was to let it go until someone could write a better article. -- Avanu (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Has this become the official Inclusionist headquarters?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If so, just rename the project. If not, I suggest you remove "Arguments against article deletion" as it is inclusionist propaganda that has nothing to do with rescuing articles. Yoenit (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the soapboxing section on "Arguments against article deletion" again, as it goes way beyond the scope of the ARS and is needlessly divisive. Starting that section with a map showing the levels of censorship around the world was a pretty good first indication for this. Confusing "deletion" and "deletionism" doesn't help things either. Basically, while the rest of the page indicates that the ARS strives to rescue articles on notable topics which have been mistakenly tagged for deletion (by lack of effort of the nominator, by lack of effort from the article creator, or for whatever other reason) by adding sources (or pointing to them) and explaining why some policy is not applicable in this or that situation; this section ignores the notability and sourcing angle and goes on a number of tangents. The image of the ARS as a club of inclusionists has tainted their good work for a number of years now, but generally people were coming to accept the ARS (or the vast majority of it) as a net positive for Wikipedia, just like most people nominating things for deletion are a net positive for Wikipedia. Going back to the divisive good inclusionists vs. evil deletionists mentality will undo a lot of this situation and does nothing to help Wikipedia and its collaborative nature. Indicate what positive things the ARS can do (and often does): don't demonize the other side of the equation. Someone has asked for checks and balances: deleting articles is a check and balance for the almost unlimited creation of articles, and the ARS is a check and balance against misguided deletions. Both are necessary, neither is bad. Fram (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_53&oldid=1142666530"