Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nominations

Just make them below and explain why this person should be in the Hall of Fame of article rescuers (a diff indicating templating of the article and commenting in the AfD, for example, would be helpful. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk

I moved this:

To be credited, you need to have 1) tagged the article for rescue and 2) made some substantive edits to the article and/or comments in the deletion discussion that resulted in its being kept in some capacity, i.e. a merge and redirect with edit history intact still counts as a rescue of content at least.

...to focus more on the collaborative efforts that go into saving an article. Some great saves are not even tagged for Article rescue squadron, and multiple editors often save articles, not just the person who tagged it... Ikip (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you can look through User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions as there are a number of articles Ecoleetage or I rescued listed there. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if you want to add them go ahead...That is a lot of work.Ikip (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Resolved

 – Ikip (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend merging with Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Selected_previous_rescues, i.e. perhaps moving this from my userspace to mainspace, adding the articles listed there here and then having a link to this page from there? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, I will work on it when I get time. Ikip (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) Ikip (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Meta-nomination

Resolved

 – Ikip (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has a File:Rescuebarnstar.png or one of the other barnstar listed at Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Barnstars should be looked at to see if they qualify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, you are welcome to help. Handing out presents is always enjoyable :)Ikip (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another idea is to have the upper portion (the Hall of Fame) as a list of editors by most rescues and then use the collapse box below as the alphabetical list of all articles rescued. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#New_idea_to_recognize_efforts. I like giving medals to editors, you have recieved the most thus far A Nobody, congratulations. Ikip (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should move this into mainspace, i.e. to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The big question is: will it be put up for deletion? You decide. Ikip (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be remarkably lame of anyone to nominate a subpage of a wikiproject for deletion. I hope our editors are better than that! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heard of WP:LAME? It happens. I added WP:ARS attempts to delete to WP:LAME. I am going to move it now. Ikip (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Its done, the first policy type page I have ever help make to go to main space. yeah! Ikip (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

more

Here are several more that I think I deserve some credit for :)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine White

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DG (character)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glitch (character)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Tin Man

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Cain.

Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are welcome to add them. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't want to seem as if I'm just promoting myself. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Example award message

==Award from: [[WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame|Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame]]==
Congratulations, you have been inducted into the [[WP:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame|Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame]].

See the new little Life Preserver [[Image:Life Preserver.svg|20px]] at the top of your page?

Coding:
{{ARS|ArticleTitle|ArticleTitle2|ArticleTitle3}} 

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. ~~~~ 

Ikip (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Publically thank TheDJ

I want to publically thank the DJ, he made the ARS template possible. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommend yet another move

Resolved

 – Ikip (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend moving this to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame. Wikipedia space allows sub-pages like this.

This would make it clear that even though it includes awards made independent of the ARS, this page is under the auspices of the article rescue squadron. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be bold and move it yet again. I think that is a great idea. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

is it appropriate to add an article that was saved from a PROD?

A prod is pretty easy to stop, admittedly. Just dispute the tag by reverting it. But I also went to the effort of finding reliable third-party sources, particularly with information on reception and development. Just wanted to know if that's outside the scope of this little list. Randomran (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think saving ones from Prods are good things as I have done that a few times myself, but I think the focus here is on articles that at some point had the rescue template, no? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured the focus was saving articles from deletion. Not everyone makes use of that template. They just see people circling for deletion, and prove that the article can be salvaged by actually editing it. Randomran (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if others agree, it would increase my rescue record.  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The list could get expansive as all hell. Maybe we should split it into a few different ones? Articles saved by the rescue template, articles saved by regular editing, articles quasi-saved by no consensus at AFD, and articles improved in response to a PROD? Or maybe that just gets too messy. Randomran (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We should get another opinion or two first. Maybe it's best to include it as a column. Or not include some of them at all. We'll see what other people say. Randomran (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; although I started this page, Ikip did more work on it than I did and Benjiboi really does a great deal of the Article Rescue Squadron maintenance, so let's see what they have to say. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think PROD's should be included, I just added one myself, then I saw this discussion. I don't like splitting up by type of delete myself. I think if we split them, they should be split by letter (alphabetized). But we can cross that road when we get there, right now the list is small.

I want to be as inclusive as possible, to me deletions are about exlusion. Excluding editors contributions and editors themselves, that we personally don't like. Therefore I want to be as inclusive as possible with all my work on wikipedia, including this list.

Randomran, did you give a {{ARS|}} award to Uncle G after you added him to the list? Ikip (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PROD and for that matter speedy-rescue awards should be rare and should be discussed first. An example of a speedy rescue would be someone sees a copyvio then rewrites the whole thing into at least a start-class article. xFD has its own discussion that can be pointed to for the "merits" of granting the award. Before granting an award for a non-discussed deletion there should be a nomination somewhere and at least a couple of days for people to say "great idea" or "he didn't do much, this would cheapen the award for everyone else." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like no strict rules on who and what can be included myself :) Ikip (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think DavidWR is suggesting something pretty fair. We should have a guideline for what goes in here, but allow for exceptions upon discussion.
• Also, I didn't give an award to Uncle G. Do we give our awards for every article saved? Randomran (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have, its really up to you though. Ikip (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna define what this list is for? I'd take a shot at it, based on what A Nobody and davidwr are saying above: "This list is for any article that has been tagged with the rescue template, which were then improved to the degree that the AFD was closed as keep. Other articles are appropriate for the hall of fame as well, but should be discussed on the talk page first." Randomran (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, just be clear that nomination-by-discussion includes all types of deletes including AFDs that were not tagged for rescue. Basically, anything that would reasonably get an article rescue barnstar using conservative standards can be here. I say "conservative standards" because anyone can hand out a barnstar. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, I think I understand what you're trying to say, but could you rephrase? I just want to be clear. Randomran (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Include an article if it meets either criteria a) tagged at AFD and rescued, or b) was nominated, discussed, and approved. These are also articles that a reasonable editor would award an article-rescue barnstar for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we doing this right?

I don't understand the emphasis of this page. It appears primarily to be a listing of articles that were saved, and sometimes gives the names of the editors who saved them, sometimes not. But I came here intending to nominate an editor who has done extraordinary work in stopping AfDs.

A Hall of Fame, it seems to me, should be first and foremost honoring the people. The column on the left should have editors' names (and, in case anyone wonders, I'm not bucking for a spot, because I don't do AfD work except as an occasional lark) and then another column should have a few examples of the better examples of their great work. Yes, I know that this is a sortable column, and that we can get the editors' names in just one or two clicks, but that's not the point. I mean, think about it. If you list saved articles, this will quickly become a monstrously long and unreadable page, with hundreds of rows. But list the editors who save articles, though, and you'll probably have less than a score of editors who really stand out. And that, friends, is what a hall of fame should look like.

I mean no disrespect towards whoever came up with this. I think it's a great idea. I just suggest reversing the organizational pattern. Unschool 12:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is how I'd do it: One editor proposes a name on this talk page of someone (e.g., User: Michig) who deserves to be in this hall of fame. Then, if two other editors agree with the nominator, Michig's name is placed in the left column. Then we could ask Michig to list the three or maybe five articles whose Rescue he is most proud of having effected, and those AfDs would be listed in another column. Unschool 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We discussed the issue of who goes before, WT:Article_Rescue_Squadron#New_idea_to_recognize_efforts.

I am hesitant to have any rules. When the hall of fame truly gets big, then we can worry about these problems. Now it is small.

No, the time to worry about it would be now, before you've built a monstrosity that will be nearly impossible to fix. With respect, I think that it makes no sense to wait. It would be like realizing that the foundation of a skyscraper is flawed, but waiting until the 100th floor is finished before fixing it. Unschool 05:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My biggest concern is how damn hard it is to add an entry. I have thought about creating an auto form, like Arbitration forms.

Thanks for your comments.

Let me know who you want to add, and I will add them. Ikip (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New inputbox

I created a new mw:extension:inputbox button, and added it to this page, based on the WP:mediation page's button.

Editors (myself) are still going to have to hand add new entries to the page, but hopefully it makes it easier for editors to add entries. Ikip (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if this works. Ikip (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixing input box

Click here to add a new entry

Templates used:

• Template:ARSH1a
• Template:ARSH1b
• Template:ARSH2a
• Template:ARSH2b
• Template:ARSH3a
• Template:ARSH3b
• Template:ARSH4a
• Template:ARSH4b
• Template:ARSH5a
• Template:ARSH5b
• Template:ARSH6a
• Template:ARSH6b
• Template:ARSH7a
• Template:ARSH7b
• Template:ARSH8a
• Template:ARSH8b

Ikip (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarah G. Buxton

An article has been rescued and not mentioned here. CheckMohamed Magdy (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Purpose?

What is the purpose of this page? It appears to me to be a pat-ourselves-on-the-back place for those who have added a few sources and a rescue tag to an AFD'd article that was subsequently kept. "This page recognizes those who have helped rescue articles from deletion". A kept article may have nothing to do with whether an editor has placed some sources in it, and a lot of the outcomes listed here may not have been swayed by the efforts of a Squadron member. "This page also recognizes and records excellent Wikipedia deletion debates in which an article was saved, in the hope that editors can learn from past discussions." Who decides whether an argument was excellent or not? It may have been coincidental that the article was kept, or perhaps it was kept because there was no consensus, or kept because several new editors with no proper understanding of policy !voted "keep". Furthermore, I fear this page promotes an attitude by involved members to automatically !vote "keep" on any AFD'd article (notable or not) with a few sources available, just so that they can get another listing on the page. I'm very inclined to send this to MFD. Pyrrhus16 03:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me, then you should keep it in the proper venue and not try to go after the Wikiprojects that i'm a part of. Silverseren^C 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem with you, a problem with what this page potentially promotes in you and others: damaging inclusionism, as well as a lust for more and more listings on the page. If this Hall of Fame "recognizes and records excellent Wikipedia deletion debates", then it has to be maintained by uninvolved individuals, not by members who have decided that their own efforts are "excellent". In my opinion, if this page is to kept, it should be renamed to "List of articles that were sent to AFD, tagged for rescue and kept" - or something alone those lines, as that is quite wordy. Again, though, who is to say that the efforts of a rescuer significantly contributed to the outcome of a debate? That is an assumption. Shouldn't all "successful" deletion discussions be looked at as a record for other editors to learn from, and not just ones from articles that happened to have a rescue tag placed on it? Pyrrhus16 04:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I base the addition of articles to here on who improved the article during the interim of while the AfD was open. Generally, that's only me, by adding sources for unsourced stuff. Sometimes, it's other people as well and I try to order the names by rank of who did the most work. Actual expansion of the article gets higher credit in my book. And, yes, it's subjective and, yes, people can learn from all debates, but we only put the ones we've been involved in. It's to illustrate what an ARS member should do to improve an article when it's up for deletion. It's not for promoting Keep votes, it's for promoting article improvements. Silverseren^C 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)