Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Eliminate the follow up section

Can we get rid of the section about articles that need follow up? Articles that are not in AfD are outside the scope of this project, and I see no reason to increase the length of this page with that list. Once the articles are rescued, they don't belong here. There are other projects for that. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The follow up is actually stuff we need to do, like adding to the rescued list or checking for possible issues. With the heated discussion above i haven't taken the time to do more clean-up work around here. In general I quickly archive anything that needs no follow up and, yes, I don't really see us making a formal process of passing off articles to WICU although, in theory, we could. I'll try to catch up in the next day or so. Banjeboi 23:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've collapsed it and moved the follow-ups for the rescue list to that article and added a link as well. This should help keep this talkpage more clean. Does this address your concerns? Banjeboi 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Tag Removal Section?

I thought the debate was still going on, but I saw the following had been added to the ARS project page:

It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before the AfD is completed. The AfD process usually takes less than a week and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the AfD closer remove it when the AfD tag is removed or the article is deleted. In all cases remain civil and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve articles.

I don't feel this reflects the debate above, which is still not yet at consensus. What would people think instead of:

In all but the most clear-cut cases, it is generally not a good idea to remove a rescue tag before the related AfD is completed. Remember that it was added in good faith by another editor who did believe the article was about an encyclopedic topic and able to be rescued. Try having a civil discussion with the tagging editor about why you feel the article is outside the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron. That said, you should feel free to employ common sense about removing tags applied to articles that clearly fall under what Wikipedia is not.

What would people think about that? Or any other wording suggestions? I'm not crazy about the recent addition with its across the board statement that removing the tag is always unhelpful and occasionally disruptive. I'd also be fine with just removing the brand new addition and leaving it as it was, with the idea that our fellow wikipedians and ARSers are perfectly capable of using common sense when dealing with tags. Vickser (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition isn't needed. The part about it being "possibly disruptive" is just nonsense in my view. It's not a crime to remove the tag. I think people should personally work on fixing the article, instead of slapping a tag on it just to notify the ARS about it. This view of "oh no it's getting deleted, I must ask for help by putting a tag on the article in AFD!" seems a bit unecessary and paranoid in my view. Also from the project page, I find this very hard to believe: Articles that are inappropriate content for Wikipedia per What Wikipedia is not. (that's listed under what the template is not for). People argue about What Wikipedia is not at times, so someone adding the tag could easily say something along the lines of "I don't feel it violates that policy, so the tag belongs". While another could disagree and remove the tag, thus resulting in another revert war over the rescue tag. Simply put: people should discuss things and think things over, BEFORE just slapping a tag on the article in AFD. Also note: if the AFD looks like it is swaying in delete: that doesn't instantly mean it needs a rescue tag either. Perhaps just copy the article to your user space and improve it, then get the article reinstated later. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to finding better and neutral ways to word both these areas both frankly I see removing the tag as simply antagonizing. Either the article will be saved at AfD or not - either way both the AfD and rescue tags will be gone in less than a week. If someone can't leave these tags in place for such a short time it really makes me question their abilities to handle other conflicts that will take far longer to sort out. Wikipedia is not just quick removal of items one doesn't like it's more about prolonged improving of articles and the project as a whole. Perhaps instead of citing "What Wikipedia is not" we could instead encourage editors to use common sense and only tag articles they believe can and will be improved in the short time span available. RobJ1981's suggestion about userfying is not something I think many consider so I would support including that as well. Also posting a message on the ARS talk page if one is unsure. In any case I see very little benefit it removing the tag once it's there. Let the process run its course, if someone is serially tagging then address that person specifically if the tagging is seen as detrimental to this project or wikipedia in some way. I still see removing the tag prematurely as more disruptive than adding the tag to articles perceived as undeserving. Banjeboi 11:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not antagonizing to remove a tag. So what if the AFD process is short? That doesn't justify the rescue tag has to remain until the AFD ends. This simply makes me think people are indeed trying to canvass AFD participation. As I stated before: I feel this is indeed an inclusionist project, due to the behavior of the people placing the tags (and revert warring them back on, when someone removes it). An AFD tag is required on an article until it remains, however a rescue tag isn't required until the AFD ends. I suggest the next time you see a rescue tag removed early: don't revert, and just do what you want to clean the article. If the article gets deleted in AFD, so be it. Life goes on. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The question here is, why should you remove the tag? This wikiproject have no special powers that prevents you from doing so. But there is very seldom any reason for the removal of the tag. Taemyr (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Removing a tag in general, perhaps, is not antagonizing, but removing an article rescue tag is like stopping CPR before the patient is declared dead. It is my considered opinion that removing the 'rescue' tag is the most antagonizing tag removal on Wikipedia, because it's one editor saying "This piece of excrement can't be saved, and you're wasting everyone's time by pleading for help doing so." Even fiction might be salvageable--just because much of the fancruft that's found its way to AfD has no RS doesn't mean that none ever will. I'm all for some sort of rescue category sorting that lets the ARS members who don't want to see fiction quickly skip over them, but I absolutely do not support that any rescue tag should be removed other than by the deletion (speedy or AfD) process. Jclemens (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The spirit of consensus is we work together and do so civilly. I see the tag as being added in cases where no rescue is likely will continue, but guess what, it might help and I see only the slight discomfort of a few as being the only problem with that. Arathi is a great example of this, almost no one saw the value in the article until it was transformed into another article completely. The very small percentage of articles at AfD that ever get the rescue tag is making me wonder what is the big deal? You accuse ARS of being inclusionist, again, yet it has been denied repeatedly and all allegations quite unproven so unless you want to press the point please move on with that line of reasoning. If you just don't like this project or the articles tagged then state your case at the AfD and let the community process work. Tagging the article with {{rescue}} isn't a majic wand, only regular editing actually "saves" an article. Banjeboi 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Could people please stop using Arathi as an example for this point. It completely does not apply. The article that the rescue tag was applied to no longer exists on wikipedia. And if the article that the rescue tag was in any way salvageable the procedure around the Arathi AfD would have been extremely troubling. Taemyr (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I see it as a good example of an article that only one person really saw as rescuable. Turns out they were right but good editing took away the unverifiable subject and found another article altogether. To me that's an improvement. Banjeboi 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The article that the tag was placed on have gotten deleted. If you think otherwise pleace point me to the article on the WoW race. A deletion outcome of delete for the WoW article would have had zero impact for the article on the completely different subject that is the east african religion. If the WoW article had been even remotedly salvageable, this edit would have been extremely problematic and the proper cause of action would have been to start the religion article at a different title, and leave it there until the AfD was finished. Taemyr (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a freshly minted article at Arathi so let's just agree that wikipedia is better off now. Banjeboi 09:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can agree that wikipedia is better of with the current article at Arathi. What I can not agree on is the statement that this is an example of a good rescue. The AfD was on a completely different article. Taemyr (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What the tag is not for

I reverted Benjiboi's changes because I feel that this removes the important point that it is not the current state of the article that is matters. It's the potential for improvement. Taemyr (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You modified and I general support the intention; although this still seems unhelpful to those who don't understand the issues or simply don't agree. I think it will be more productive to spell out common sense than point to a specific policy that then becomes a point of wikilawyering like we've witnessed. ie. "I'm removing because ____ says ____." I'm happy to work on something that conveys this so when editors need some guidance we can direct them there and it's not one policy that they may not agree with. Banjeboi 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add my voice of concern as well. Without pointing to any specific AFDs, I am increasingly seeing the "rescue" tag applied to articles which promote a lot of "Keep: notable, sources exist somewhere !votes. (Not to accuse everyone in the rescue squad of bad faith. I'm sure most of you, maybe even all of you are actually trying to improve articles, and the !vote-spamming may be a coincidence, or the misunderstanding of a few squad members at worst.) I think there needs to be some kind of check or balance on the rescue tag for that reason. Reversion is an option, but I'd like to have some kind of precise standard to know when reversion is appropriate, to remove the tag. The only other alternative I can think of is excessively bureaucratic and combative: a "AFD scrutiny" tag for AFDs that are being spammed by !votes with incoherent arguments with no evidential basis. I'd hate to see things go down that path, but the growing abuse of the "rescue" tag needs some kind of reasonable and semi-precise limit. Randomran (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say that those situations, where editors believe that sources exists somewhere is precisely the sort of articles that are candidates for rescue. That is, an editor should apply the rescue tag when he believes sources exists, but do not atm have access to those sources. Also, you'll want to read WP:VAGUEWAVE again. Taemyr (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced that the use of this tag is somehow out of control or being abused. The same arguments could be said about AfD in general. I think someone called the inclusionists/deletionists at AfD trench warfare and this discussion may be a part of that thinking. I've added to the dashboard a count of total articles to add perspective to this; currently there are 646 articles at AfD with 10 tagged for rescue. Banjeboi 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano

I need serious help trying to save my article, Ai Nagano, which I recently tagged for rescue. The article needs references, and lacks information readily available. Can anyone please help me? It is an article that is about to be deleted and needs improvement! Any assistance in saving my article would be appreciated. Thank you. Kitty53 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All three articles, and frankly all articles need sources, good reliable ones. I suggest you focus on the most notable roles these actors did and on the Afd discussion you can post links to show evidence they acted in the roles listed. This might be found on the credits list for the film/series or a secondary report, even a press release could help demonstrate that actor _____ performed in _____. Figure out where it says they were the actors and you will have the sources. Banjeboi 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is reliable sources. Unfortunately such sources would not be independent. As such they will not establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's start with sourcing which affirms what's being stated and work on replacing with more reliable sourcing as time allows. I'm unsure where to even look for this information but if movie credits state actor X played character Y and we have a RS that character Y is a major character in that movie I would accept the two as helping establish notability. Banjeboi 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged articles

Kokoro Kikuchi, and
Kiyoshi Kawakubo

Resolved
 – Both kept. Banjeboi 02:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Schola Progenium,
High Lords of Terra,
Age of Strife,
Adeptus Custodes,
Squig,
Marneus Calgar,
Alien Hunters (Warhammer 40,000),
Astronomican and
Immaterium

Resolved
 – all deleted. Banjeboi 10:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of minor characters in Xenosaga

Resolved
 – Deleted w/redirect. Banjeboi 10:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano, Kokoro Kikuchi, and Kiyoshi Kawakubo

Help! Now I have three seiyuu articles up for deletion! Ai Nagano, Kokoro Kikuchi, and Kiyoshi Kawakubo, which I have created, are up for deletion! Can anyone please help?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. In this edit summary [1] you refer to a ja article. Which article? Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

tagged articles

Deconfliction

Resolved
 – deleted. Banjeboi 04:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseon tongsinsa, and
Ancient Tombs of Goguryeo

Resolved
 – Both redirected. Banjeboi 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar proposal

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_12&oldid=1144802572"