Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

-logy

Resolved

 – Article tagged for rescue, interested folks can help as they see fit. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for rescue? At the minimum, I think soft redirect ({{wi}}) would be preferable. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga as gay icon

Can someone please flag the article Lady Gaga as gay icon for rescue? I am the main editor of the article. I think that this article, while not very large yet, simply needs more details and references. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can add the rescue tag. You put two { before the word rescue and two } after it, and its done. Dream Focus 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Like this {{rescue}} Ikip (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It said to post a message here if you were the main editor. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You did fine, you can also add the tag yourself even if you are the main editor, we may need to change that. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:ARS/Tagged is listing wrong page

{{ARS/Tagged}} is listing: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage Ikip (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not an issue with that template actually, if you look at the page bottom you'll see Hidden category: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue. This happens every once in a while along with other odd things. I'd say just ignore it. -- Banjeboi 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank ben, you know more about these templates than I do now, and i made that one, lol! Ikip (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries! -- Banjeboi 00:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume 1 No. 1

News items and announcements | Feature | Featured editor | Featured administrator | Humor | Contest | Want ads |

{{{1}}}

I think with a very large membership of 277 editors, it is time we finally had our first newsletter. I am going to start designing one right now.

I would love some ideas on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/draft what we should write....we will collaberatively work on this and agree on its contents before it is sent out. Ikip (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I came up with several ideas on the subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Article_Rescue_Squadron/Newsletter/draft

We need basically three sections done, and I would really love all your help:

1. Statistics of project, how many articles save, how many new members since x date.
2. News items and announcements, out of those sub-articles we can choose the best one to be the feature article.
3. Featured editor: I was thinking at first Ben, but then I got thinking, wouldn't it be great to interview one of the old timers, who first started the project? That would be a fitting beginning to the first newsletter. We will need

a) to figure out who to interview,

b) come up with the questions,

...using the video game interview as our guide. You are issue #2 Ben!

Maybe we can announce your article rescue squadron contest in this issue A Nobody, what do you think? Ikip (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the general idea ... but, everything we print ends up a bit of a can-o-worms so I suggest appropriate caution focussed on the end goal to inform and encourage on ARS' goals. I would give general overview on stats as we really have only generalized ones going over two years. As this is the first newsletter in two years I wouldn't push new members info as much as encourage people to make use of our handy templates for listing currently tagged articles and invite template. We could also alert them to the user box and dashboard counter which are also kind of snazzy.

I'm not sure "news" as much as some recent changes FYI would be more accurate; didn't a new AfD bot get started? And didn't {{find}} get added to AfD pages?

I would like folks to add their best how-to rescue ideas to our developing page.

Instead of an editor profile i think it would be smarter to focus on a recruiting drive and the contest. In the interest of diplomacy I think a two-tiered one may make sense; one that's short-term (which IMHO still doesn't make sense) and another that covers the rest of 2009.
We could also bundle in the motto contest for our future banners. -- Banjeboi 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Neat idea. Could it mention the possibility of a rejuvenated rescue contest as I proposed a short while back? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, i might write a short feature for it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A nobody, as I mentioned in my last sentence above, yes, I would love your rescue contest to be listed.

You can work out the details with Ben:

In the interest of diplomacy I think a two-tiered one may make sense; one that's short-term (which IMHO still doesn't make sense) and another that covers the rest of 2009.

I think that is a great idea! You two decide if a two tier contest is best, or one of the two options.

FeydHuxtable, you are welcome to start adding content now: News items and announcements

I think we can have an editor profile and recruiting drive and the contest. This can be explained briefly in the News items and announcements section, with a link to contest page.

Ben, what do you mean by recruiting drive? Ikip (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should do two recruiting drives one to all active Wikiprojects to (i) let them know we exist and reference the articles alerts function as well as {{rescue}} when needed and also (ii) invite them to join as well as often we need experts in different areas to help us determine notability and finding sourcing; then a second wider recruitment of folks based on user boxes and categories. -- Banjeboi 14:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"As this is the first newsletter in two years" --really I didn't know there was another newsletter...where is it at?

How does this recruitment drive tie into the newsletter? (other than obviously the newsletter is a form of recruitment/re-recruitment also) Ikip (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added some events: Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20090901/News Tell me what you think, feel free to edit or add material. Ikip (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ben, I added the dashboard.

I can't find the {{find}} on a current afd I checked.

You mean the collapable user box listing all the articles with rescue tags? I added that.

I think the news portion is almost done, at least what I want to add.

A Nobody, are you going to do the contest? Ikip (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Name for newsletter

I wasn't thinking of adding a name to the first newsletter, but another editor was nice enough to add one.[1]

Although "The Lifesaver" has some potential, we aren't saving lives, and "articlesaver" sounds strange, any suggestions for a differnet title for the newsletter?

I have no problem not having a name at all for now, or the lifesaver, I guess...what do you all think? Ikip (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are some synonms for life jacket:

Mae West, buoy, cork jacket, life belt, life net, life preserver, life vest, lifeline, swimmies

How about lifeline? I will change it to that now...Ikip (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Lifeline", but simply calling it "The ARS Newletter" would be simple, safe, maintains the title format of many other project's newsletters, and could not be seen as confrontational. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but without the abbreviations. I will change it. Ikip (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LAST CHANCE TO COMPLAIN

I am hoping that I can get the paper out today (Sunday) Last chance to complain. Based on the lackluster reponse to this, I am not worried about any of the content being shot down at this point.

Four sections in the draft

Thank you FeydHuxtable for your contributions. Ikip (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I am the last person on earth on this page. Okay, here it goes, I am mailing this sucker out! Ikip (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars project

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL: Past successful deletion debates Sub article

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

For example:

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Past successful deletion debates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New idea to recognize efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifth formerly deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Also, Dragon kill points, which was previously deleted with much fanfare, is now a Good article. Protonk (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought this up Protonk, I was about to mention this here. Ikip (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found articles which are now Featured articles, which were put up for deletion, using this search pattern for lists.[2] and simply searching all featured article talk pages.

1. 2008 NBA Draft
2. List of songs in Guitar Hero II
3. List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada)
4. List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle

Ikip (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists are not featured articles. It is much easier to become a featured list. Fram (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Example

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

Recognition of embattled users

I have found in my work with new editors, that the majority of new editors are welcomed with warning templates and impersonally nasty messages, saying subtly, and not so subtly, that "your contributions are not welcome" In other words, veteran editors can be real &*&(^ to new users. What I love about this project is we are not only about saving articles, we are about, indirectly, retaining new users. I just created a new template/barnstar morph: User:Ikip/t which can be placed on new editors talk pages:

==Welcome==

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Hello, Article Rescue Squadron, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like wikipedia and decide to stay. I am sorry that there are so many impersonal warning messages on your talk page. There are many editors who feel that your hard work here is important and valuable, especially me. Need help? If you are looking for help, you can just type: {{helpme}} ...and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Or, please visit New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! If you have any questions at all, please [message me]. Again, welcome! Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Subst:User:Ikip/t}}

The template signs your name for you. It is part of:

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		message Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Medals

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

{{ARS|ArticleTitle}}

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

(Inspired by User:Piotrus/Top which is hanging above his talk page). Ikip (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

ARS tools and possible tools discussion

AFD summaries

Any chance of someone taking over these AFD summaries to get them working again? This may help us find those article in more of a need to rescue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap that actually has potential! I consider my weak point actually combing through AFDs to find ones that deserve rescuing but this may help exponentially! -- Banjeboi 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidates for Speed Deletion

I have been watching the CAT:CSD portal and have found that about 25% of the articles there have either been marked incorrectly (which I guess an admin should catch) or just need a little work. On most of the articles that deal with a person, they are notable under WP:BIO but no one (including the db tagger) has taken the time to check for notability references. If you're interested in finding more articles to save (as if there needed to be more to go through) I'd suggest check it out. OlYeller^Talktome 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the obligation of A7. If there's no assertion of notability, the article goes *pfft*. If there is an assertion of notability, then the speedy tag gets declined and the article sent to Prod or AfD. Whether or not an A7-tagged article is notable is irrelevant to the CSD-A7 process, because speedy does not evaluate anything outside the article itself. Does it claim notability? Speedy declined. Does it NOT claim notability? It's gone. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that some admins think it's different and delete under A7 what does not belong under A7. Checking CAT:CSD and removing overeager taggings is thus something helpful. See also Pedro's comments on WT:RFA on that matter[3]. Regards SoWhy 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I was curious as to whether or not an admin checked for references. So when I find an article in CSD that's worth saving (has sources for the info but doesn't cite it) what should I do? Generally, I add links to the sources in the talk page or just add the citations myself and removed the db. I know that the {{rescue}} is specifically for articles in AfD but would it be wrong to use it on an article that's tagged for speedy deletion? Sometimes I don't have time to add the citations on articles or could just generally use some help. I feel like it wouldn't be wrong to use it on CSD articles but I don't want to go against what the description of the tag specifically says it's to be used for. OlYeller^Talktome 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My own view on that is the time frame. An AfD lasts around five days... give or take... and a Rescue tag night be added at day one or day five. If a resuce is to be mounted, we have to move fast and hope a closing admin makes notes of post-nomination improvements. When something is tagged for speedy, any improvement must happen within hours, minutes, or sometimes even seconds... not days. Even with the few days offered by an AfD we can be quite swamped, as there are so few of us and so much to do. So please continue as you are. If you find something being speedied that you can improve enough to address the reasons for the tag so that the tag can be removed, please do so. Perhaps we will one day have an "Emergency Rescue Squad", made up of editors who live on Red Bull, whose only task is to attempt rescue of articles that have been speedied. I do not mean to sound flippant, as you asked a very valid question. Simply put, ARS works at AfD, not CSD. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to make an alert?

I do a lot of review of PRODs, and just recently came out of a 10 day snit (the typical steamrolling of over twenty grouped articles because of faulty logic on one. And no, they weren't my articles), where all I was doing was reviewing prods and CSD's, leaving notes as an IP user. But, I'm back reviewing. So, where do I go to alert others of articles that could use some work? I recently did some work on Leah Horowitz, declining the speedy, before turning that over to the Judaism wikiproject, and now have concerns about Gottfried Honegger. I found there is a of info one the subject, but most is not web acessible. I did find one book reference, and modified the article, but don't know the intent of the PROD'er (if they want it gone, they'll find a way), so i didn't de-PROD it yet.

Anyway, let me know where to put article alerts as I find stuff that I can't fix myself or give to a WikiProject.

Vulture19 (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 99% of articles have yet to reach GA/FA status and so are in need of work. This is too wide a scope for the ARS which has enough to do just looking at the ones in immediate threat of deletion. If there's an article which has promise and you can find a reference then you shouldn't hesitate to deprod it. In most cases, there is usually a better alternative to deletion per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think it will remain a case by case approach. Sometimes there are active appropriate Wikiprojects so alerting them is effective. Some of the same strategies you employ is what we do so your experience is quite familiar. Certainly if an article you work on then goes to AfD, like often happens with prodded articles, you should consider if adding the rescue tag makes sense. When we start to develop a guide for how to look for rescuable articles in the prods i hope you'd be willing to offer guidance. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I handle saves by attempting the edit myself. Dependent on time, I will at least put one solid ref in. After that, I try to get 1) the article creator, 2) an appropriate WikiProject, 3) ??? to help out. It appears that the ARS jumps in primarily when the article goes to AfD? That's cool. I generally try to get the article at the CSD or PROD stage. So, given that this group definitely has the AfD covered, I will continue to plug along the CSD and PROD route. If you see an article show up at AfD that was contested by me, make sure to check the discussion page for links. That should save you time, and it gives me assurance that, in the extreme case, the ARS will be my #3 if the article gets nominated. Vulture19 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I too watch CSD for misplaced speedy tags and I also wish sometimes that I could add the rescue tag or mark the article in some way to show that it needs help soon. I started a discussion on it before (see here). Someone pointed out that we'd have to have editors who are essentially injecting Red Bull into their veins to keep up with the CSD Rescue tags. I think the best thing you can do is basically what you're already doing; put in a strong reference or arguement, tag the article with known issues, and talk about the issues on the discussion page. Otherwise, you can always hit me up for help. OlYeller^Talktome 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that ANYONE who hasn't worked on the article can remove a speedy tag? There's nothing at all wrong with removing a speedy tag and replacing it with a PROD or AfD, to give you some time to work on it, if it's not a G10 (attack) or G12 (copyvio). ARS folks nominating things for AfD may seem counterintuitive, but it buys time. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually you don't have to replace it with anything, as far as I know. If an article is tagged A7 (for example) yet contains an assertion of notability, it's perfectly legitimate for an editor to remove it. Ideally, the removing editor would then do some work to improve the article. pablo_hablo. 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, anyone who has a motivation and willingness to improve an article can add a {{hangon}} tag. If someone besides the article creator has tagged an article with a note on the talk page that says "Give me X hours--I think this can be sourced and am actively working on it." I really expect that most admins would honor that. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While I can only speak for myself, yes, I knew you could remove db tags. I usually do when I work on rescuing a CSD article (as well as a hangon). I don't add a prod because if I'm saving it, I believe it shouldn't be deleted and I don't put it into AfD because AfD isn't for cleanup (see WP:BEFORE). That's basically the issue that Vulture and I run in to. To get the help from ARS, we need an overzelous editor who places a CSD tag on an article that can be saved, then attempts to put it into AFD after we make a mvoe to save it. OlYeller^Talktome 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will not remove copvio's or patent nonsense. But I regularly remove CSD's, though I will only do so if I add to the article. In one case, as an IP, I encouraged someone whose CSD I removed to send it to AfD (it's an inherited notability case, and I think the AfD discussion will help establish/reinforce precedence). Now, one of my pet peeves (shared by the kindred spirits here) is having an article tagged for the wrong reason. It irritates the hell out of me that editors who insist on factual accuracy in articles completely disregard it when it comes to deletion. And it is important, as if the article is deleted for the wrong reason (e.g. WP:HOAX (another misused rationale, I could go on and on...)), recreation can be exceedingly difficult. The CSD and PROD processes scare me for the simple reason that hard work can be wiped out by, and this is a worse case example, a flawed nomination and a tired admin. So, without increasing the burden on anyone else, as I get to know bailiwicks of people here, I can shoot a direct request (and by all means, if I can be of help, let me know). Vulture19 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are times when I will remove a speedy tag & substitute a prod: when the reason given is not one of the speedy criteria, but would be adequate for deletion otherwise & the article itself is uncontroversially deleteable. DGG (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding the list of articles to be rescued to your talk page

User:Casliber had a brilliant idea: adding the list of articles which currently have the rescue tag to your talk page:

Coding: {{ARS/Tagged}}

This list is dynamic, and the list of articles will change as the rescue template is removed or added from articles. Ikip (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This crosses a line. I am unhappy with an automatic tool to canvass AFDs to anyone with a self-professed agenda at AFD, especially with no criteria other than someone not wanting the article deleted. When it's a project's cleanup tool in the project's space, that's one thing, but this is too much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatically adding references to articles

Most of my work on wikipedia involves adding references to articles which are about to be deleted.

I found it is ESSENTIAL to have the cite tool. Here are easy instructions: User:Ikip/ref it is really easy to install. Ikip (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ARS "How to" potential content

Did you know...

...that there are Brownie points for newly-expanded articles which are available at WP:DYK? I just tried this for the first time on an article that I expanded to save it from deletion. The process wasn't too bad - easier than nominating an article for AFD. By doing this, you can get some kudos for the hard work of adding references and text as well as the warm glow of saving an article from deletion. This seems a good twofer and we can share the credit if we work together on a rescue. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to set up auto message for those who apply {{rescue}} template

The latest rounds of alleged abuse did spark an idea that may help. Perhaps an auto message that posts to any editor who adds {{rescue}} that prods them to try improving the article themselves and points them to some ideas about and resources for rescuing. This may in effect help them help themselves.

I think it would be helpful to concurrently develop a subpage with some steps that ARS has found useful in improving articles (finding sources, better writing, appropriate categories, etc.) finding those with more experience in the subject (finding wikiprojects or editors that may know more in a given field) and how to respond to concerns raised at AfD (these seem to exist already so we could simply summarize and link. The target audience is newbies et al who may not get wikipedia's policies and now feel "their article" is being picked on. We offer some welcoming advice and a more neutral stance that all articles have the same requirements but perhaps some work and research may help the article they have rise to the standards. Our preliminary research noted above and elsewhere shows that a lot a wobbly article are created by newbies so i think this may help. If nothing else it installs a reasonable and friendly message on their talkpage - perhaps the first one they've gotten - that clearly sets forth that articles that don't come up to standards are deleted. As part of that message we could encourage them to draft their next article and ask for more eyes before launching it. In this way I think we might help slow down repeat frustration on all fronts and may help conserve community resources. Does that sound like a promising concept? -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• A Nobody had a similar welcome template that may be helpful for soem of the resources, also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes seems a good resource. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And when he returns from "break", and if we can keep him focused (chuckle), Ikip had some terrific help pages for new editors that would serve very well for those being advised how best to affect a rescue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ikip is around now. I agree that specific help pages dealing with the deletion process would be nice. I think a large part of it, though, is that there is no punishment for overly aggressive people who nominate weak pages left and right, even article stubs that were just created. It's frustrating dealing with such aggressive deletionists; if they fail consensus on AfD, they don't actually lose anything and will simply try again later. Deletionism is a widely accepted philosophy, so they can't be accused of acting in bad faith either. -moritheil^Talk 05:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I already wrote User:Ikip/Del which helps new editors with arguing policies, anyone is welcome to edit and expand that page.

I also regularly post messages to new editors with promosing articles, for example: User_talk:Otomo#An_article_you_created_maybe_deleted_soon:_Tools_which_can_help_you

I remember Ben said that we need some way to review all of the articles which are put up for deletion. That is what I try to do everyday. I would like to create a web scrapper which takes all of the articles on WP:AFDT and then compares them to goolge news (archive) and google books. But thus far this has been difficult to program. Ikip (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally find an auto message very annoying. Anyone doing a lot of rescue work would get a lot of spam. The constructive recommended steps for article development are a great idea, however. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with skom, there would have to be an opt out option. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather not have an opt out for a couple of reasons. We can greatly condense the content into drop-down format - "Click here for details" - thus mitigating issues of talkpage space and perceived footprint. If someone gets ten in a row it still won't be that horrid. This bot is to present any up-to-date resources so even if someone didn't want one currently they easily may in the future but reality is that people opt out and rarely re-opt back in. I also see this as helping note if the tag is being "abused", that is if someone is misapplying the tag and they get multiple messages at least we'll have a record of that without having to investigate each AfD to confirm. In short the hassle of getting multiple messages can be somewhat addressed and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. -- Banjeboi 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Newby editors survey

Wikipedia's Usability and Experience Study is a somewhat lengthy but interesting read for those concerning with how friendly and usable Wikipedia can be. The bits about references may help inform writing some of our how to material. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the link, I enjoyed it. It seems like many of the problems they address are system wide, which we have no control over. But the "how to" may help in some of these respects. Maybe there are other how-to's which are already available which would be helpful and which can be incorporated? Ikip (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I think for our part we should emphasize the most basic way to ref a sentence and feel free to ask for help. Once we're clear of the current drama I feel i can devote more time to the How to content -- Banjeboi 05:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ARS project development

Wikiads

See: Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox. Any creative editor willing to make a wiki-ad for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? I will ask the creators of the existing templates if the can create one.Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try and build one of these also in the next week. Ikip (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter ideas

Would anyone here be interested in starting a newsletter with me? The best example and most popular newsletter is: WP:POST. There are several examples:

• Category:WikiProject Films newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Cats newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Hawaii newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Biography newsletters
• Category:WikiProject India newsletters
• Category:WikiProject Led Zeppelin newsletters
• Category:WikiProject The Beatles newsletters
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

...and several bots: Category:Newsletter delivery bots. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-annual one may be OK, lets coordinate this once we get a few other kinks worked out. I'd like to see a How-To rescue subpage be created and sort out a few of the present drama so if we get an influx of energy it is directed wisely. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your how to rescue page idea. I have started one here: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/How to

I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter is the best bet. Ikip (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mottos

Hey everyone, what do you think of this as a motto for our project?

“ ...Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy... ” — Barack Obama, President of the United States of America

TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

and equate some editors with terrorists? Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the shoe fits... Actually, I'm pretty sure most Wikipedia editors would identify some others as terrorists. The identity of said alleged terrorists might vary depending on the perspective of the editor in question, however. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the motto, but being from a politician it is automatically partisan, so it may turn off republican editors. Ikip (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a battleground. Jack Merridew 02:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was a battleground nor did I say anything about biased politics or terrorists. I'm just saying its always better to build things than destroy them. Isn't that the whole reason this group exists? TomCat4680 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To whom was Obama referring? Terrorists. And both of the other editors above are making snarky personal attacks. Is this project about rescuing articles from a process or from opponents? And why a motto at all? If I can offer one from the peanut gallery;

“ To Divide and Conquer ”

Jack Merridew 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Knock it off. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stricken. Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thought, TomCat, but the context and the political baggage are problematic. There's also the unfortunate equation of deletion to willful destruction, which is troubling. Personally, I favor making up a motto on the spot and attributing it to Oscar Wilde. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay is this one more neutral and less of an attack on deletionists?:

“ Don't point a finger, lend a hand ”

It may be simple and maybe sound like something from an elementary school classroom, but I think its applicable here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Better, but deleting something is also lending a hand in solving the problem, and the project page advises people who don't know enough about a subject to fix it to add more-specific cleanup tags or alert specialist editors. Pointing a finger can be good, lending a hand can be bad. (Plus the fact that most of the people who put things up for deletion aren't deletionists, any more than most of the people who comment to keep a given article are inclusionists. The vaaaaaaast majority of people do not have a general philosophy of inclusion at all, let alone one of either extreme. Be careful about labeling your opposition on a specific topic - keeping this or that article - as part of a cabal to oppose you in general.)

Simple and direct are both good. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a similar sentiment which comes from another great politician. His hobby was brick-laying, which is a nice analogue of our activity here - building a great work, one brick at a time. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.

  — Winston S. Churchill

I like that one. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The others are also inherently adversarial; not about the articles, their issues, or the possibility of their rescue. I'll try again:

“ Some things can be fixed ”

Jack Merridew 12:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I love TomCat4680's Churchill quote, I think that would be a great motto. Ikip (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I didn't suggest that one, it was Colonel Warden's. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that motto relevant for here, and not antagonistic? ARS is about article deletion discussions, hardly thoughtless or a single day. And to build an encyclopedia, you may have to remove things which don't belong there. Deletion is a minor but essential part of building. Of course care must be taken that not too much is deleted, but that is not really what the motto suggests. Fram (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what I've been considering to be our motto?

“ Don't count on us. ”

The whole point of ARS is that it should not be necessary. --Kizor 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Luv it. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Word, I like this one. OlYeller^Talktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: We could take the ones we like best and have a run off and use the top placers in some wikiads that serve them up randomly. -- Banjeboi 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Want to setup a runoff? I still have no idea how to propose things officially. OlYeller^Talktome 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For stuff like this, there's no real official way of doing it nor any need for officialness. Do it however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we should start over and instead of a motto per se just solitic advert slogan suggestions since that's the only application we have potentially available. I would want to cast the net a bit to get more imput and it may make sense to wait til the RfC closes as theis could then be the main community discussion and would arguably be more inspiring. -- Banjeboi 13:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my offering, modified from my userpage motto. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

“ We'd rather fix the damn pipes than complain about having wet feet ”

XfD theory discussions

These may translate into proposals and they may help inform our "how to" guide.

WP:PRESERVE

This long-standing and useful policy is under attack at Wikipedia:Editing policy. Members of this project should take an interest since its statement that we should "endeavour to preserve information" is in harmony with our mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the heads up, there are several other guidelines and essays which echo this policy, see User:Ikip/Del#Strong_arguments:

1. WP:PRESERVE Policy Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing...
2. Wikipedia:Notability Guideline states: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." Most editors who put an article up for deletion fail to do this. This is something you can bring up in the deletion discussion.
3. Wikipedia:Deletion Policy Decorum and politeness. Wikipedia urges any contributor to read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy before deleting or nominating an article for deletion. "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" (Discussing on the talk page before flagging for deletion is rarely done.)
4. Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process WP:INTROTODELETE Essay Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
5. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state WP:POTENTIAL Essay In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:BEFORE Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
7. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content."

Ikip (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - thanks for this fine summary. It is quite remarkable how blind some editors are to these numerous encouragments to save material and build upon it. The fact that WP:PRESERVE comes as a surprise to them is telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, "under attack" is a poor choice of words to describe a discussion where all concerned have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart but disagree on the detains of how to achieve this. Whenever I feel that a comment is an "attack", I think it indicates that I have become emotionally involved in a discussion, and should try to look at it from the other person's point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A discussion of interest.

“ Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measure (e.g., merging) is not appropriate. ”

Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deletion_is_to_be_a_last_resort In this, I argue that even when an AfD outcome by numbers is delete, administrators should be expected to close a discussion as merge when a reasonable merger target has been identified. That is, when we bust our butts making something verifiable and reliably sourced and enough people still think (or thought once and then never revisited the article after our improvements) it's not notable, the content we've added/improved can be expected to go to a reasonable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

great idea, but based on my experience at the deletion pages, I already know what the response will be, before I click on your link.

But hey, if the AfD can be increased to 7 days anything is possible, right? Ikip (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested to take this to Wikipedia:Deletion Policy. Do you have plans to rewrite and do so? -- Banjeboi 18:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No immediate plans, no. One can only deal with so many controversies at once, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we back-burner this for future AfD proposals or archive. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll: Do you support a bot which informs major contributors of an AFD?

• How many people believe we need a bot that does the following:

Bot sends an editor out an automatic message that an article which an editor has previously contributed to is up for deletion, and link to where to find the AFD at. This is done by:

1. The bot reads the AFD today page a couple times each day, and adds any new AFD to an AfD list.
2. The bot goes to each article's page, checks through the edit history, listing which editors did the most contributions (this tool already exists, also), and the amount of contributions to the article, and/or the number of edits to it, adds them to a list to be contacted. Exact number to be determined later.
3. Makes certain the person has not signed up for any, "don't send me any automatic messages like this again" list, removes names from the contact list as appropriate. The bot message also has a link to where to sign up to not get any more messages, if for whatever reason, an editor doesn't want these messages.

• Support Its not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, since it'd be so filled up each day from constant edits, you wouldn't be able to sort through it. If anyone spent the time and effort contributing significantly to an article, they surely want to know their work is up for deletion, and work at finding a solution to fix whatever might be wrong with it. Dream Focus 17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support brilliant idea, if it is possible, have you ask on WP:VPT if this is possible? I off and on contact new editors by hand who have their articles up for deletion. This could be expanded to other contributors. Ikip (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, does not look like a bad thing at all and may resolve several AfD related problems. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - couldn't hurt, although an article articles with various tags on it them should be worked on before someone catches them and nominates them for deletion. Radiopathy •talk• 18:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Does not concern the ARS - this has little bearing on the tasks of our article editing suicide squad, so I take no position. --Kizor 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds like an offer of resignation after the James Burns orchestra is no more... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds entirely relevant to the ARS, as it would have the effect of bringing more editors to the AFD who would !vote keep. Isn't that what you do? Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not related to the function or goal of ARS But go right ahead. Enough of this sort of thing and people will come to realize that ARS isn't about rescue. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ARS is not related to AFD at all? I'm happy someone pointed this out... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, query I would think there would be huge problems coding this, the main problem being who the bot will identify as a major or significant contributor. Often the biggest changes in terms of bytes, text added or deleted are vandals. Number of edits to an article is also problematic, although I suppose that you could take the number of edits to be evidence of an interest in the article. What is the aim of this bot though, and how does it benefit the project? pablo_hablo. 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a huge, maybe insurmountable obstacle. Maybe start with an automatic notice to the creator? Ikip (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Why not?" support Agree with the others that this isn't really an ARS-centric topic, but I don't see why every article (even the ones I would never try and rescue) shouldn't get this sort of notification. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality but this is certainly do-able. I suggest the template employed be compacted as likely some editors will get multiples and have a show/hide section - for newbies - that includes content on what AfD is as hints for participating as well as rescue mantras of adding sourcing and demonstarting notability. Articles tagged with {{rescue}} could serve as a testing ground. -- Banjeboi 10:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• support No such bot will be perfect, but it's better than relying on manual notification. I point out that major contributors is not a biased group, as it will include those who are quite dissatisfied with the article.
• Support - What Jclemens said. OlYeller^Talktome 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support as those who are actually knowledgeable about the topic under discussion and willing to work on it should be heard. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  ...are you suggesting that they be solicited directly to the AFD to comment, or encouraged to improve the article and offered resources to do so? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Same thing. They go to the AFD to see the reason someone nominated it for deletion, since that is where it'll be listed at. Discuss it there, and work on the article as necessary. Dream Focus 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  They should do both; i.e. work to improve the article and note their improvements and what else they plan to do in the discussion as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hm. I'm not happy with that for a reason I can't place my finger on, but your argument is so convincing that I can't currently refute it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like an effective way to improve the AfD process by making it more likely that editors familiar with the articles will enter comments. No significant downside as far as I can tell. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support surprised it doesn't exist yet Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support anything that helps save valuable articles cant be bad. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• My reservations aside, whoever proposes this wherever it ends up being proposed should probably find out why notifying all editors of an article up for deletion is up at perennial proposals as a routinely rejected and re-proposed proposal. There's no links to any discussions or history for that, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It states the answer right there: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. This is somewhat addressed by my comment - This needs some clarification as number of edits and volume of content (added or deleted) does not always equal quality - part of the bot set-up will have to be a reality check within reason, like editors who've touched the article in the last six months and aren't bots and aren't minor edits. This still isn't foolproof but the goal is to get those who are keen on the content existing to help demonstrate sourcing or if a merge is to happen, the best target, etc. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between past perrinial proposals, requiring the nominator for deletion to contact the creator, and this one, is that a bot will notify editors.

Currently any editor can find who created an article by adding the name to this link (with _ or + for spaces):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAME&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article+Rescue+Squadron&dir=prev&action=history&limit=1

I say we find someone to create the bot, such as the editor who made the WP:ARS bot, and ask them to make it, then we get approval to use it on the bot page.Ikip (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified Support, I agree with Dream Focus that it's not possible to have every article you worked on and care about on a watchlist, and the general sentiment that AfD should prompt concerned editors to make improvements or repairs. But I don't think it is practical to work out which editors once cherished an article vs. those who merely touched it, and I don't think this distinction is necessary anyway. When an article enters AfD, why not just generate a watchlist event for everyone who has ever edited it or commented on its talk page? There could be a "Hide automatic AfD notification" command on the watchlist page for editors who don't want to know. If some new page creators get a load of messages, well, that's valuable feedback, isn't it? - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a bot will be both neutral and impartial... neither deletionist nor inclusionist... just buzzing along doing its job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot has already been made and approved

Found it: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Jayden54Bot

"This bot will automatically notify article authors when "their" article is up for deletion in an Article for Deletion discussion."

User:Jayden54Bot bot created and approved in January 2007.

More details: User:Jayden54Bot/AFDNotify

Opt out coding: User:Jayden54Bot/ignore.js

Currently not active, Bot was deactivated by the request of the creator, because he was "taking a very long wiki-break"[4]

Author talking about a speedy deletion bot.[5]

"I haven't given out the source code for the AfD task"[6] So no one has the coding for this bot.

Past comments on this same idea, other bots

Bot requests page: AfD Notification bot "bot could automatically notify the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are associated with articles that have been nominated at AfD that the article has been nominated" 01:11, 27 November 2006: Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_8#AfD_alert_bot, created Jayden54Bot Our suggestion (short): Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_14#AfD_notification_bot, Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_21#Afd_notification 09:26, 29 September 2007: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_43#Notification_as_part_of_deletion_process Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC) ...It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Other bots User:Jayden54/WPDead Source.js

Ikip (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close bot discussion

Seems there is overwhelming support to try this and various past bots have also been created along these lines. Obviously this may have to wait a bit but I'd like to close and compact this one as it seems to have winded down a bit. If no one else wants to address this i will but it will have to wait a few.

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 02:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Article Purgatory" proposal at WT:AfD

Please see my idea/proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#ARSify.3F Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

interesting suggestion. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving this to the AfD related bot idea - perhaps the userfy option can be spelled out as part of that effort. -- Banjeboi 07:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to survey recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag

In an effort toward constructive solutions, appropriate for any Wikiproject, I propose we undertake a survey of recently closed AFD's that employed the {{rescue}} tag to specifically look for "empty" !votes. The AfD's themselves could have had any end result and the votes themselves only have to be arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All those identified (no regard to being ARS affiliated or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities. No pillory needed, just positive and constructive criticism that woud certianly benefit all concerned. If approved in theory, specifics would be metted out based on if bots or hand counting methods were used.

Note: Please keep comments concise and on point.

• Support as nom. -- Banjeboi 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This should provide a useful pointer of what is actually happening at Afd rather than relying on subjective perceptions. (I'd actually be in favour of a survey of the "!vote quality" for want of a better term across all Afds, but that should be run at a different level.) pablo_hablo. 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support: this is a decent idea. It will show where ARS is effective, and show areas where ARS can improve its effectiveness. It may be hard since many articles tagged for rescue are ultimately deleted, though. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• You would have to also look to see how in the discussions actually edited the articles as well, though, no? And how can you do that without undeleting the articles? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I think we are only looking at quality of !votes on the AfD; if someone edited the article in some way is also not the issue on this proposal - just poorly casted !votes. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, I would hope such a thing works both way, i.e. it is not just about ARS members saying to "keep" but also those who say "delete as cruft" and the like who have no mainspace edits to the articles or show no sign of looking for sources. Sometimes I notice trends like what I reported here, but other times we don't always pick up on the indiscriminate copy and paste "delete per noms" that are basically "delete all articles on fictional characters" or "delete all articles on bilateral relations", without considering their individual merits. Even I will argued to delete some fictional character articles, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), just as I am willing to argue to delete rescue templated articles as well, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of compression. It's the indiscriminate approach that is a concern. Just because an article is rescue templated doesn't mean it can be rescue and at the same time, just because it's on bilateral relations or about a fictional elements doesn't mean it can't be rescue as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey now, I called WP:DUCK on the nominator days earlier [7] for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mibbit... I suppose it just took them doing something a little more widespread before becoming worthy of even more AN/I attention ;) Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, it should highlight all empty !votes. pablo_hablo. 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • An administrator can look at deleted articles and their edit histories, if that was necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• weak oppose to oppose The suggestion is not appropriate to discussions on curbing the effectiveness of ARS. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ikip (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • One of the perceived canvassing issues is that the {{rescue}} tag attracts poor !votes. This would help address the issue but do so neutrally. Neither targeting nor excluding any editors but simply on improving the atmosphere at AfDs. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Who's to say that the AFD template itself doesn't attract weak "votes"? We have, after all, had "arguments to avoid" to style votes long before the ARS and certainly in AfDs in which the ARS is not involved. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That's true, and arguments to avoid are regularly bandied about at Afd. But I think the intention here is to find empirical evidence of whether adding the {{rescue}} tag encourages null !votes. pablo_hablo. 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it encourages some to make bogus delete "votes" as I have seen a few times now where someone makes a joke about it being tagged for rescue in a delete "vote" that doesn't really seem to focus on the actual article itself. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
        • But no other wikiproject has to go through such scrutinty. We should include WP:VG, for example in this study, and maybe one other, say warhammer. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Or better yet, as I have said many times on this page, use our time toward rescuing articles... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Permission is not required for this. Per WP:BOLD, if you think this is a good idea then go for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. This is less a "get permission" issue than a "find someone to bell the cat" one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was looking to find constructive solutions and work toward finding common ground. If we find a bot way of doing this as well that may be useful for a wider scope. -- Banjeboi 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Bots that analyze (as opposed to bots that do things) don't need any special permission, I believe. Someone just needs to do this, if they want it done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would say nothing about vote-stacking, nothing about this project, and would just disenfranchise the opinion of people who haven't realised that they're required to state the bleeding obvious in order to not be disenfranchised. Rebecca (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support with Modifications In order for a comparison to be valid, it would be better to include not just "rescue" tagged AfD's, but a much broader selection of AfD's. Only then can one see if the tag attracts more improvements than "empty" votes. Note that I do would like to see "keep per improvement" and "keep per sourcing found" votes called out separately. I call them substantial votes, but realize that others might not. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wrong focus Of more interest is the extent to which the articles have changed while the rescue template is up. Of course this can only be conducted on articles that are kept. And of course either study can be conducted by any editor willing to put in the work. Taemyr (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this is an interesting question too. Either would be illuminating. Randomran (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not looking to do a big ol' comparison per se but just identify empty !voters who may also be ARS members (official or not) who should be coached to improve. For neutrality all empty !voters should be contacted with the same message. The stated concern is empty "keep" !votes associated with ARS. If those are stopped then that's a step in the right direction, right? And if we also help stop other empty votes then even better. In thinking on this further I'm not sure a bot would be able to determine all this so it may have to be the human bots instead. or perhaps an initial survey to see what the empty !votes are and extrapolate those findings for a bot. -- Banjeboi 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it's important to recognize that the worst thing that happens is we find a few specific instances where articles aren't being improved. That's information that we can use to teach some members of ARS to be as effective as its best members. If people do a better job of improving articles, aren't we helping ARS achieve its purpose, and ultimately Wikipedia's? Randomran (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This survey wouldn't address that, only empty !votes at AfD. And the hall of fame list is majorly outdated; we've had hundreds of rescues since then but no clear idea how best to capture that and strycture the chart to express that. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Err, I think that's what I meant. We'll find a few instances of empty !votes. That's just a way to help people make more effective arguments, and contribute to improving the article in ways that will help rescue, and help Wikipedia. There's really no downside, assuming a few other editors have the time and energy to do the analysis. Randomran (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I support but only because I can't think of a better word. It sounds like a great idea and I hope that it gets completed but I don't really have any interest in participating. OlYeller^Talktome 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, excellent idea. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support to survey all empty !votes, as they are sadly just as likely to be found in terse delete opinions as they might in terse keeps. I recently worked on an article that was nommed as an unreleased future film that failed Crystal. The first several !votes were all delete as crystal, or delte as unreleased, etc... following in the footsteps of the nom. I spent 5 minutes in deiligent search and found that the film had not only been released the year previous, but that it had won several festival awards and received significant coverage. My squawking about poor WP:BEFORE starts to sound like bad faith in what would be hoped is a good faith nomination, but I have seen this happen far too many times. Its beyond frustrating. There has to be some way to curtail continued lack of or sloppy use of BEFORE, or lack of consideration of WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, or following the instructions at WP:DEL. If this survey helps underscore poor !votes and results in suggested solutions, I am all for looking into the situation and I'd like this survey to have a wider scope. Time to open wiki-school and wiki refresher courses. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest 2?

See Wikipedia:Article rescue contest. What a splendid idea! Why not start a Wikipedia:Article rescue contest II (after all it has been four years since the first, so in the spirit of the olympics...)? Let's focus on something that is simultaneously fun, rewarding, and constructive! Not opposed to Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2 or Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2009 or something as an alternative name. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. How would it work? Randomran (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose like the first one, no? I can tell from such discussions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic (film) (with rescue credit due mostly to Collectonian, I think?) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations (well, I think I deserve the lionshare of credit on this one! :)) that editors do have a motivation to rescue the rescue templated articles, so I do not see why they would not be interested in such a thing as an added incentive and good spirited competition. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked over the first one, and I guess I wasn't clear on everything. Would we start rescuing articles on some certain date and keep track of our efforts over a few weeks, or would editors begin submitting articles they've rescued over the years to see which ones are the most improved? Randomran (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to see things as moving forward, so rather than focus on ones rescued in the past for which we can already claim say the little life preservers I have on the top of my talk page, let's focus on ones currently under discussion or that will be and yes, we can set some target date. The ARS was founded on July 13th, so it can be an anniversary event say between now and then. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think a race to see who can do the most or the fastest is always fun. But it may also be fun to see if people can take at-risk articles to GA or even FA status. It's very satisfying when you turn someone else's garbage into Wikipedia's treasure. There's a lot of different ways to approach a contest. But even though it's a competition, it's probably best to think of a format that will maximize the benefit for Wikipedia and its overall spirit of collaboration. Randomran (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, let's agree on the name, i.e. which redlink to make blue above and then I will gladly began drafting the contest. As the proposer here, I would see my own role being as helping draft the proposal and just helping out on all the various articles rather than being a judge or contestant, although I would rather have a simple say 6 day vote open to all ARS members than a judgement deal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of those would be a good idea. Let's get some feedback from the others. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. There is/was? something called a bounty board as well on here, maybe a rescue bounty board would be another motivating factor too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Once the current drama dies down I would support this. It may make sense to dovetail with building up our "How to rescue" page to assist newbies as well as guide non-newbies towards building GA level articles. For continuity for future use it may make sense as well to start it July 1 so it can cover half of 2009 and a new contest can cover the first half of 2010. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Will the drama ever die down? I say start the contest now A Nobody, knowing you will be doing the majority of the work. Ikip (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, but I would like us to agree on a name for it first. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Article rescue contest 2? Be Bold, create it, we can always rename it later. Ikip (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have started it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, 2 year aniversary, you are starting a annual trend ! Ikip (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, annual would suggest we do it every year; that first contest was I think back in 2005, no? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect I suggest starting it July 1 so the focus can be on a 6-month article improvement contest and not on ARS' anniversary. In promoting it we can advertise it as a way to mark our anniversary. Also rather than yearlong contests I wonder if two 6-month contests a year make sense to attrack those (like myself) who may not be into a year-long commitment or repel those who show up mid-year to a contest that is half-over, etc. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the anniversary date myself. Was the last contest for 6 long months? That seems to long, maybe two weeks, one month max. Otherwise people will start losing interest. Ikip (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To me the work needs to be in porportion to the benefits. I think six months is a good time period and if we want to start a new semi-annual one we simply copy paste. The goals, IMHO, is to not simply look to rescue but to instill quality work, if our top contestant rescues and takes five articles from AfD to GA that rather speaks for itself. Also a broader time frame lends itself to wider promotion in appropriate venues. As part of that promotion we should explain what ARS is in a brief boilerplate which can include our anniversary. Theoreticly, article rescuing has always occurred so it's not so much about ARS but the concept and getting better articles and editing. We are but one part of the solution and should be realistic in that many people rescue without our involvement at all. -- Banjeboi 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To get this ball rolling again...

Maybe we should start with a simple contest, i.e. who can do the most to save say the content under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)? Solutions include:

• Splitting into smaller genre specific articles.
• Renaming with "nicknames" in place of "honorific titles."
• Finding and adding references that specifically use "honorific titles".

Editors can try all three of the above and the one that proves most acceptable by the end of the week can be the winner, perhaps? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that a contest should be inviting and broadly inclusive; I think it should be over a generous time period and acknowledge items saved and improved by any objective measure, A DYK, GA status, number of reliable sources added, etc. I suggest we do something that covers Sept-Dec of 2009. It would be big enough to justify advertising it as opposed to something that is so small it would seem a poor choice of resources. For the above idea, I say why not just declare a friendly contest on this page and do it. It just doesn't have to be all organized and official. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hidden category on previously tagged pages?

The number of articles tagged is quite large - I'm guessing 1500-2000 at least. Obviously many statistics will be meaningless as anyone can tag any article so we don't control the quality of items coming to us. However I think it is helpful to note how many tagged articles are at each class of article including a growing number at GA. In addition I think it's helpful to note how many do a DYK blurb thus were featured on the main page. I'd like to find a way to add a category to the talkpage or article page so we can keep track of former articles. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea - something like the way that pages formerly listed at AfD have a tag on the talkpage with links to previous discussions, you mean? I think those are added manually (usually by the closing admin}), maybe this would also have to be a manual addition. It would certainly be interesting to keep track of what happens to these articles post-AfD. pablo_hablo. 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were very unobtrusive, something that also incorporated adding the category, yes. If I get real inspired I'll try to do a manual count by month for those months we have a record of. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats

OK, we have several counts: There is the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame which lists just some of the more notable ones that we've bothered to list. We have yet to decide how best to deal with this so this is very much a work in process. Feeding twoards that was an effort to at least record which articles were worked on, I have simply tried to keep the records intact.

2008

Note: Starting in August a more concerted effort was made to archive items that were merged, redirects and deletes or not clear rescues to be more formally acknowledged; these numbers reflect a likely rescue:
August = 25
September = 50
October = 42
November = 31
December = 26+25 (from two lists) = 51

2009

Note: For 2009 we only have raw total articles tagged:
January =130
February =59 (we lost a bunch due to miscommunications and bot issues)
March =120 + 11 + ? (some processed and archived already) = 131+
April =167
May =187 + 49(currently tagged) = 236 so far

Based on these numbers I loosely project ARS has worked on;
2007 (project started in mid-2007)= 750 "rescuing" 300-400
2008 (averaged for twelve months) = 1434 "rescuing" 478
2009 (for the first five months) = 823 "rescuing" 250-300

These are very generalized and we may never know the actual figures as teh current processes to use the rescue tag to flag items triggers a bot which creates a listing. Articles never tagged but still rescued are therefore generally not counted anywhere. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding tweakability to rescue template's find sources parameter

Here I've asked for help modifying our {{rescue}} template so we can tweak the "find sources" parameter to a specific string. I know this was talked about somewhere but as things have quieted a bit this seemed a easy thing to persue. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently tagged articles into chronological order

Hey all, I'm working toward a system whereby our items are listed in the currently tagged list by date sent to XfD rather than date tagged for rescue. In theory those listed sooner need more attention as their time at XfD is likely running out. If I can get the bot to do this will look toward that solution. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

that is a great idea, how did it work out? Ikip (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Working on a bot fix. -- Banjeboi 02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Prod rescue

Save these ideas for a likely Prod Q&A. -- Banjeboi 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know, I know, ARS doesn't do prods. Abdomenizer, a plastic exerciser for sit-ups advertised by infomericals in the 80s and 90s, has been prodded. I'd love to deprod and save it, but I'm having trouble gathering reliable sources. TV advert:[8]. It made it into the Onion:[9] An amusing tale by a comedian of when he bought one:[10]. Here's someone sledding with one:[11]. I found a brief mention in the LA Times:[12], and it gets mentioned in passing a lot:[13]. Can anyone work their magic? Fences&Windows 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Put {{find}} on the talkpage and see if that helps you find sources. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Instructions for rescuing Prods: 1. Edit the article 2. Look for text that looks like this {{dated prod|concern = Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails [[WP:V]]|month = June|day = 22|year = 2009|time = 10:46|timestamp = 20090622104625}} <!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" --> 3. Remove it 4. Save the page with a meaningful edit summary like "contested prod" 5. Improve it yourself if you can 6. If someone AfD's it despite your best efforts, and you still believe it to be rescuable, insert {{rescue}} immediately below the AfD nomination. Hope that helps, Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I hope I'm not butting in here, but I added a reference to the guardian and removed the prod. When removing a prod you should always say why you think the prod nomination is wrong or premature. In this case I added a reference I found in moments, other than those you found. It would be useful to put the above refs on the article talk page. Verbal chat 19:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I know the score on deprodding, I just wasn't sure I had adequate sources to avoid it being deleted at AfD. I try to avoid drive-by deprodding! Prompted by Verbal's deprod, I've sourced it now. Fences&Windows 02:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Deprodding something isn't a guarantee that it gets sent to AfD. Sometimes, the amount of effort needed is pretty minimal. When I convert speedies to prods, I never check back to see if they were ever acted upon, for instance. Don't make things more complicated than it needs to be, take things one step at a time. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I don't always improve articles when I deprod, but often I try to edit prodded articles so I think they have a good chance of standing alone. If I simply deprod it might not go to AfD now, but it might go in 6 months, a year, two years, especially if it is unsourced. The paradox of PROD and AfD is that some of the articles that survive get improved a lot... Fences&Windows 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I think it's applied brinksmanship: Improve this, or it goes bye-bye. Really, it's quite simple. The tragedy involved is that it's often very difficult to tell the difference between good stuff and trash without investing a fair bit of effort in it, so much good stuff goes unidentified as having potential. Further, there's really only very primitive and haphazard methods to notify people who might be interested (DELSORT) or motivated (ARS) to help. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Recovery Squad

(Amended - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)) Hi,

I was wondering if they would be support for such as project to rescue images, given the resources now available such as Tineye and FURME.

No-one likes to delete content right?

The objective of such a project would be to fix up images that are proposed for deletion under CSD,PUI, IFD so that they don't need to be deleted, and if appropriate brought up to the standards needed for Commons (typically a fully completed {{information}} box and undisputed 'free' licence.)

For images not compatible with Commons, the squad could assist in providing a suitable rationale, appropriate to their usage on Wikipedia and the Non free content Criteria

The squad could also :

• monitor NFR/DFU tagging/deletions, so that rationales can be fixed or provided.
• assist in cleanup from TWINKLE tagging of CSD's, as I've noticed cases where although the image got detagged, captions on the instances in Articles and Templates did not.

Some useful templates that might aid a squad are :

• {{information}} which fully filled out greatly helps.
• {{May be uploader}} - Which is intended to be temporarily used in a source field of {{information}} when the

image MAY have been created by the uploader, but not explicitly stated. If you place this you should make some attempt to ask the uploader about the image concerned.

• {{AddinfoforCommonsMove}} - This template was created to help ensure that images going to Commons did not

have issues, in that it's intended for images that appear to meet commons criteria like a 'free' licence but for which certain information is lacking. Adding this with a {{information}} and informing the uploader accordingly can sometimes yield the desired result :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I don't like the sound of "the squad could find suitable articles to place them in". If non-free images are needed in an article, they can be added, but we should certainly not start with a non-free image and think "hmmm, where can I put this?". Images are not nearly as dependent as articles upon being "improved" before deletion- if it's a simple matter of adding a rationale for a legitimate use, the tagger/would be deleter would probably add it themselves. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal ammended Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. I would create the page in your user space User:J Milburn/Image Recovery Squad, then move it to regular space a few weeks later: Image Recovery Squad, after you have enough editors support it and give their two cents.

I doubt anyone will make Image Recovery Squad for you--too many good ideas die on talk pages. If you don't do it, no one will. Plan on spending 10 times more energy than anyone else on the project too. Otherwise the page will be marked historical within a year.

I would write the page, then float it on WP:VPM and other pages before moving it to wikipedia mainspace. That way you are assured an editor doesn't come by and put it up for deletion.

I personally am not interested in this project, I have given up uploading photos years ago because of the nasty way some editors treated my legitamate image contributions, for example, deleting pictures before 1920's, for example, after I tried to explain there is no such copyright on such pages. But if you build it...they may come.

Of course, your project would be like this project, like putting a bandaid on a huge gashing wound.Ikip (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New universal side bar

I just created: Template:ARSB I think many of the red links should stay, to encourage editors to create these pages, but some are not appropriate for our project, and articles like Article Rescue Squadron Hall of Fame needs to be added also.

it is not ready for primetime yet. Ikip (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It shows promise but does need work! -- Banjeboi 12:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel it's unneeded, we're just not that complicated. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the most beautiful side bar I have ever seen: Template:Alevism wow. Ikip (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

To do list

Unless someone beats me to it, I would like to add a to do list to the top of this page. Ikip (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you hold off? We have a very busy page and I'd hate to add more. It may help ease off some of the lingering bit but to do lists also end up - out of sight, out of mind. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It is already on the backburner anyway. Ikip (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PRODs and ThaddeusB

User:ThaddeusB just stated something pretty amazing:

"I patrol every single expiring prod to look for Notable topics that need dePRODed and not exactly notable topics that should still be preserved through merges."[14]

If we could only do this with AFDs.

wasn't there a suggestion to incorporate PRODs into ARS at one time? Ikip (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested a few times, I think we should start a Prod Squad of folks who look through prods and do some triage of sorts, then if a deprodded article is sent to AfD it can be tagged for rescue by those same folks. This would be, in essence, the "search" in "Search & Rescue". -- Banjeboi 12:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Same with AFDs. I want to set up a script which automatically pulls the names of the afds, then compares them to, google, google news and google books, giving a list of how many hits on each page. It is very possible, I just need to learn how to program it.

Right now though, a bigger priority is notifying editors of an AFD if they say, have 4 or more edits on an article, just as there is now a bot which notifies creators of an AFD. Ikip (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have long thought about writing a BOT to help with some aspects of PROD (which could also help with AfD). Most notably, it would make a list of ready made search links that I use regularly to help judge notability. That is, things like an IMDb link, an Allmusic link, etc. It could also do things like count existing sources, check the history of the article, etc.

However, a higher priority might be to generate a list of all AfDs that allows ARS members to "check off" ones they've checked for notability. The only reason I can get away with checking every expiring prod every day is because if I find notability, I only have to spend 1 min removing the tag & maybe doing some basic cleanup. When I have to write a through AfD defense of an article that takes 20-30 mins; and actually fixing an article takes even longer. As such, no one could possibly defend every notable topic that makes AfD. I central list to help co-ordinate efforts to check for notability would thus be beneficial to make sure as few savable articles as possible are slipping through.

Wikipedia:WikiProject proposed deletion patrolling already exists, and while it's not as active as it could be there's some of us who routinely patrol the prods each day. I'm averaging about 1.5 deprods per day since I started in June. I try to improve them, but I don't always. Some deprods are 'procedural' due to previous deprods or AfDs that the proposer didn't notice, other times I merge the article or change it to a redirect, and sometimes I support the deletion with a {{prod2}} template or convert it to an AfD discussion. Thaddeus tends to be kinder than me; he deprods several that I allow through, but more of his deprods get sent to AfD. Probably around 100 articles get prodded per day, and maybe 60-70 end up being deleted a week later.

Another "rescue" list is articles that have been deprodded, as they may not have had any decent work done to them, and are often prime targets for being sent to AfD. I've asked around and such a list doesn't exist at the moment, but in theory a bot could produce one. Fences&Windows 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing dePRODs is a lower priority than fixing AfDs, as they aren't in imminent danger of being deleted. Additionally, not every article that gets dePRODed needs work. By the time they make it to day 7, pretty much everything left is neither clearly NN, or in very bad shape. As such, the vast majority of my saves need work. (Some are also marginal in notability.) I have a script I use to organize my past dePRODs for me.

Of my dePRODs, about 5-10% need no substantial work, about 25% have been at least partially fixed by me, and about 10% have later been improved by a "regular editor" - that is someone who isn't specifically trying to save article. That leaves about half of them in need of some work - sometime just editing for tone, but usually referencing and/or expanding.

I'll try to create a list of articles needing work, organized by subject, in the near future. However, as I said, AfDs should be the priority since it is much harder to get an article back after its been deleted via AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do similar patrolling to Thaddeus, but I do it somewhat earlier than expiration. There are some topics I cannot judge well, so it is good that more than one person do it. A few more people would help--I doubt that even the two of us make for universal competence. The time to put a prod into ARS is if it is changed to an AfD, or is very likely that it will be. Not all that many of the prodded articles actually are going to need it.

However, a script to search against the googles only works for the most trivial sort of single-word article titles. There are multiple ways to search even a name, and certainly a phrase. Until we have AI, we need to use ours'. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, this is mostly correct - less than 10% of my dePRODs have been sent to AfD. However, when a find an article recently dePRODed by someone else (but still on the list of PRODs), it is quite often sent to AfD. I attribute this to two factors: one, people respect my judgment due to my editcount (not necessarily a good idea, but it happens. :)) Two, I always give a strong argument for notability when dePRODing - usually along with a link to sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

About 5% of my deprods end up at AfD. Aside from a whole bunch of foreign Wikipedias that I deprodded to force a discussion, it's very rare that articles I deprod are deleted; I try to add references and do clean up, and I always give a good reason for the deprod. Part of prod patrolling is also pointing out to nominators when they've added the template inappropriately, either for procedural reasons or because it was trivially easy to find sources. I also sometimes give the article creator a nudge to tell them I've deprodded and that it'd be nice if they could improve the article. Dropping a note to a related Wikiproject is a good idea, particularly for cases where most sources are non-English. Fences&Windows 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Erwin has singlehandly saved more articles than we all ever could

Everyone, User:Erwin deserves a huge barnstar from each of us for this:

The bot actually already notifies all authors with more than 5 non-minor edits.[15]

Mr. Erwin also states:

Please not that the bot uses User:Erwin/AfDNote as a template for the messages it leaves. It can easily be edited and improvements are always welcome.

Ikip (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

I was just alerted to:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 14

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 19

As some of you know, there has been massive disruption caused over the deletion of bilateral relation articles. Discussions have gotten quite heated, with people being sent to ANI over these articles, and disscusions of RFCs.

A compromise which many of us came up with, which a handful of editors ademently refused to accept, was merging several of these articles into List of diplomatic missions of Argentina, for example.

Now the editor who was the most adement to comprimise is putting the redirects up for deletion.

Ikip (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Link to the compromise? -- Banjeboi 14:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_54#Deletion of_Bilateral_relation_pages_despite_ongoing_merging_effort It is heartening that some editors who always vote delete supported it.

I have started to preeptively redirect these smaller stub pages, before the material is merged into the parent article, this will shrink the number of targeted articles to those that have only footnotes and are extensive. Ikip (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats good to hear. I like having discreet articles on the individual relationships where at all possible, as there are many reasons why readers might use them - citizen from country A marrying partner from B , a merchant from A evaluating a potential deal with B , etc etc FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I really like the articles, but some editors really dislike them. I would rather not mass redirect articles, but it beats dozens more ANI and hundreds of more arguments. Ikip (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to congratulate both of you for being pragmatic on this and heading off arguments before they start. It is huge progress from where we started when I proposed the standstill back in June. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sad: ARS founder Tlogmer has not edited since October 2008

Really sad. Ikip (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many wikipedians come and go. They may be lurking as an anon or other name as well. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Current pages tagged for rescue

Here are the current pages, tagged for rescue, showing the contributors by number of edits and date:

• http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en&page=Fictional_history_of_the_DC_Universe
• http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en&page=Fictional_history_of_the_Marvel_Universe

[cut]

Editors can be neutrally notified if an article they edited is up for deletion. There is no rule about how many edits the editor needs before they can be contacted, but realistically, unless the editor has 3 or more major edits, and is still active of wikipedia, you are probably wasting your time.

I know the bot is supposed to notify editors, but I don't think it has been, because the creator cites server problems.

I would like to create a script which automatically gets this information, but I am still learning how to use scripting language. Ikip (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Until a bot is created, here is a temporary solution. Add any article name to:

WP:ARSS Like this:

{{ARSS|Teddy bear|Diet Coke}}

This is the current list of articles tagged for rescue, with their entire editor editor history:

Better site: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=L%2FL+Research Ikip (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Adw allows an editor to easily contact other editors about a deletion discussion about an article they were involved in. Ikip (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)