Wikipedia talk:Intensive Care Unit

This page was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was tag as historical.

Section one[edit]

I like this idea a lot — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratic[edit]

I feel some people could use this to make standards for article existence higher, so most articles would have to spend a lot of time here before being "published." A.Z. 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is for articles that already exist. You have a point, but I doubt that this would be a platform for those whose deletion standards are extreme. This intended for the "worst of the worst" as far as style, copy editing and sourcing, but which still have a subject that would likely pass muster of the article wasn't so crappy. It's something we'll have to keep an eye on, but at least it is a start. And right now, that's about all it is. Feel free to join in, we'll need all the help we can get. Realkyhick 04:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be a lot of "worst of the worst." Many articles start as a stub and only months later someone will add something to them, yet they are about an important topic. Why having this page? Why not just let the articles be and eventually someone will decide to edit them? This page makes it look like we have a deadline. A.Z. 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more and more editors are weeding through those stale stubs, proposing them for deletion. I know — I'm one of them. This isn't for stubs, though. It's for longer-length articles that are just plain bad, even though the subject is notable. Let's just see how this all plays out. It may not amount to anything, in which case we just shut it down and move on. Realkyhick 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating this page for deletion, I'm just discussing it. I think Wikipedia is a big "care unit" for most of its articles, and there's nothing wrong with it. As User:Omegatron would have said, I'm not ashamed it's a wiki. You wrote "The Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit is a place for articles written about a subject that one or more editors believes is likely notable, but the article itself is in such poor condition that it may face deletion on other grounds." I believe there should be no other grounds, so there would be no need for this page. The only reason why the entire project is not an "intensive" care unit for most of its articles is that there are not enough people to do all the work that needs to be done so quickly. If there were, there would be no need for this page, since no article would be really bad and need more intensive care that it already has. I see no reason why this page would be able to save articles from deletion any more than the rest of Wikipedia already does. A.Z. 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're nominating for deletion, and you make some valid points. However, there are other grounds for deletion even when a subject is otherwise likely notable, such as lack of sources and/or verification. These articles are likely candidates for the ICU. I guess you could say this is an effort to focus attention on certain articles that might be worth saving. Maybe I was just tired of some editors saying that I was using the AfD process to force some articles to be improved. (I wasn't, as the articles in question should have clearly been deleted as they stood at the time of nomination.) Again, I'm playing things by ear a bit at first. Realkyhick 05:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck :-) I dislike the sense of urgency, though. A.Z. 05:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I couldn't come up with a better name. :-) Realkyhick 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "Rehab unit" ? DGG (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is like "celebrity rehab" then we would "fix" the articles then just revert our changes as soon as they got out of rehab be right back where we started from. :) Helmsb 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, someone should tell the folks over at ...[edit]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this may be a duplication of their effort, but I'll post something there. Thanks. Realkyhick 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be seeing some reverse triage[edit]

Some may work on the articles deemed "least in danger" to increase their edit counts, etc.... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any improvement of articles is meritorious. Everyone realises already that the way to build edit counts quickly is to make small fixes. Let everyone build up edit count as high as they can, if they improve the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

From {{icu}}, "One or more editors feels that, while the subject may be notable, the article itself has major issues that might otherwise result in deletion." - This statement seems to include an implicit threat. If these issues are not resolved, will someone from this project nominate the article for deletion? Even an unaffiliated editor may randomly stumble upon the tagged article and feel the urge to pull the plug. The triage approach to article assessment is interesting, but it creates a sense of immediacy which wouldn't otherwise exist. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is also my concern. Notable subjects should not have their articles deleted, even if their articles are a blank page. User:Geogre's rationale (explained on his user page) for adopting an immediatist approach is: "The 'eventualist' position is of some concern to me because of the problem of first impressions. Eventually Wikipedians will fill in gaps, but the new users do not often get motivated to fix bad articles." I personally don't fell any less motivated to fix bad articles because 97% of them are currently crap. I see no reason to feel that way. We do have good articles, the number of good articles is increasing, and that's enough. When all of the current 2,000,000 articles become featured articles, there will still be other tens of millions that will be crap, but one day will be featured as well. One day, all of the currently featured articles were crap. And it does make a difference whether you delete an article because it has only two sentences and no reference or not. If it does have two sentences (or even just a title), someone has done a part of the job of writing it, and the next person won't have to start from scratch. A.Z. 02:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project doesn't have to pose a threat over an article and maybe it was a mistake to mention in the first place that articles could be facing deletion. The concept of "intensive care" is immediately comprehensible. I am in the Wikification WikiProject and articles there tend to divide into two: a) those that need some help with wikification and b) those that have multiple problems so that I don't know where to start with them. It would be good to be able to take the worst of those and place them in here. Itsmejudith 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it more as setting an example of what should be done. Personally, I almost always work on emergencies that arise at Afd, and sometimes on enough of a minimal upgrade of those at Speedy or Prod to avoid imminent deletion. I wish I could work more thoroughly, and want to encourage those who will. There's no way we can fix more than 1% of what's needed by listing them here--and so the ones we do list should be those that both really need improvement and have the potential to really be helped by it, which is not always the same thing.DGG (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions on different wording for the {{[[Template:|]]}} tag. When I created it, the articles of concern were in the AfD process, so that's where my reasoning came from. But I'm not that wrapped up in that phrase, so feel free to suggest improvements. Realkyhick 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't fully aware of the history of this project. It's a novel approach, I hope it works out well. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Cases[edit]

How about a subpage for archiving cases that have moved out of ICU (such as Anna Wilding, though in that case it seems terminal) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit/Article archive Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The I Scream Man[edit]

I think this is a very interesting project: there seem to me too many articles that get put up for deletion when a bit of work could produce something valuable and that demonstrates notability. I'm not certain how to "use" this project, but I've tagged The I Scream Man and given triage details on the Talk page. Should a note also go on the AfD page? Bondegezou 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely include a note on the AfD. I usually put something like, "This article has been placed in the [[WP:ICU|Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit]]." This also serves to promote the ICU just a bit — I think quite a few of our members found us that way. (Ah, shameless self-promotion. I usually speedy-delete articles for that. :-) ) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sukyo Mahikari[edit]

Do people think that the above article should be placed in the ICU? I've messed about with it a bit but it is still in a very bad way. Itsmejudith 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely bring it in. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start towards cleaningup cites. Lots more work to be done. -- Boracay Bill 07:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category[edit]

I've added the articles that are listed in the category, so they have a little higher visibility here. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Protocol[edit]

In order to make it easier to fix articles, perhaps we should ask that people flagging articles for the ICU should include a brief summary of why they think the article is notable? (In order to help direct improvement, as well as the search for references.) Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just read that this should be covered under the tag that people are supposed to place on the talk page of the article they're adding. But while we're waiting for that tag, perhaps this could be a substitute? --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm still working on the icu-triage template. Been busy at work. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{icu-saved}}[edit]

The {{icu-saved}} needs to match Wikipedia:Talk page templates style, rather than the {{ambox}} style. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I haven't played with templates a lot though, so if someone would take a look and make sure I didn't screw it up, that be great. :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also went and created a {{icu-treated}} template for articles that are good enough to release, but that haven't been involved in an AfD. If that seems like a reasonable thing to have, I'll add it to the main page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have done a good job. See: Talk:The Summit (Birmingham). As for {{icu-treated}}, I was just thinking that the other day when I was reading the text of {{icu-saved}}. Just put it on the main page! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that, but then I had an internal debate about whether it'd be template-crufty, so I figured I'd get an opinion. (Probably a sign that I'm spending too much time monitoring WQA :) Anyway, it'll be up in a minute. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two projects, same subject[edit]

There's a virtually identical project at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I think the two projects should be merged. Thoughts? The other was started before this one (14 July vs 3 September), so my first suggestion was to merge into the older organization. Neil ム 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some differences (ie, ICU doesn't focus solely on AfD projects, and hopefully our approach will be more structured, if the triage template works out), however, the redundancy issue should be addressed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a message on their talk page when I found out about it shortly after I started this project. Never heard a thing from anyone over there, at least that I know of. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied my reply over to their talk page, where the merger was proposed. What are your thoughts on the redundancy issue? --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion at ANI, I think a merger would possibly not be a great idea. (At least not until the dust settles over there). --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have some issues over there. I think we'll stand pat for now and see what happens. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that got proposed over at ARS's talk is the idea of Article rescue focusing on AfD'd articles, and ICU trying to prevent articles from getting to ICU. It seemed like a reasonable way to separate the two wikiprojects, but like you said, we may as well see what happens over there. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, Article Rescue Squadron is crap and doesn't work. I feel like this is an actually useful project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Patients[edit]

Since we're presumably going to get some articles reffered here that are beyond help, any thoughts on how should we deal with them? I was thinking the options are:

Nothing. Pro: infinite number of beds, no hurt. Con: It could hurt the ICU's reputation, plus make it harder to help the articles with potential
Review, then if needed delist, detag. Pro: Keeps ICU focused on articles with a better chance. Con: could deter people from referring.
Nom for deletion though CSD/prod/AfD. Pro: Well, this was founded by a self-described deletionist :) Certainly keeps ICU focused on the good articles. Con: I imagine this would be contentious.
Use triage template. Since this isn't here yet, I'm speculating, but if we assume that someone else is listing the hopeless cases here, then maybe the triage evaluation could include options like 'reduce to a stub', etc.

Just my 2 cents. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I realy need to get to that triage template, don't I?) I tend to favor the review-then-delist/detag option. I doubt this would deter many from referring, unless we kept some sort of publicly-viewable statistic of how many "patients" didn't make it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest treating Template:Icu as a temporary placeholder for an AfD. That is, encourage new page patrollers to tag pages they think might be 'borderline' with 'icu' instead of 'afd'... with the understanding that they're going to come back in a week or so and AfD it if it hasn't improved. If nothing happens then just remove the tag after some set amount of time (two weeks?). If nobody is making noises about deleting a page then the need to fix it isn't 'Intensive' and it falls under the more general purview of WP:CU and Template:Cleanup. If someone does take a page to AfD and people think it should be saved then I'd make the same suggestion I did over at WP:ARS... update Template:AfDM to include an optional parameter for showing the 'this article may be worthwhile, please help clean it up' text in addition to the AfD notice. --CBD 12:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like people to repair articles that have a chance, I think it'd be redundant to ask people to use our wikiproject tags instead of deletion (since 'How to nom an article' pretty much says that cleanup should come before deletion). Plus, some might interpret it as being kinda instruction-creepy. That said, I like the idea of waiting 2 weeks, then replacing everything with generic cleanup tags. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled by seeing this referred as a deletionist project; I have strongly supported it from the first. The originator of the project and I may refer to ourselves by "opposite" labels, but our actual goal is the same. I think everyone agrees that the thing to do with low quality articles about notable subjects was to improve them. I also think everyone agrees the that thing to do with very low quality articles about subjects of minimal notability that could not possibly be improved, or where notability could not be demonstrated at all, was to remove them. The cut-off levels here are perhaps not altogether in agreement, and the bars for particular types of articles may not have complete consensus, but the directions to take are not in dispute--at least I'd hope so. I agree with Bfigura that this should remain a project for articles being worked on, and that after a while, they should be archived, with a note about what has subsequently happened. WP process is complicated enough without adding another mandatory step. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using this discussion as a guide, I added some new discharge instructions to the main page. Any thoughts / comments / beatings? Cheers :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triage!!![edit]

We have a triage template! All hail Realkyhick, template guru. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guru? Yeah, right. But thanks anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Cross[edit]

Regardless of the copyright status of the red cross image used on the main page, use of the red cross symbol is governed by the Geneva Conventions, and it is protected from indiscriminate use, as described at Emblems of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement#Use of the emblems. Clearly, WP:ICU is not an acceptable use of the symbol, and as such I've removed it from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs)

I have reverted the symbol back to use here, as the rather odd assertion by an unsigned user that our use somehow violates the Geneva Convention is dubious at best and sheer bollocks at worst. It would have been more proper for this unsigned user to at least bring the matter up for discussion, instead of unilaterally imposing his interpretation of the Geneva Convention. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading article 44 of the first Geneva convention[1] does seem to make it clear, and as the US is a signatory to the convention, it would seem to be illegal to use it here. (Not saying I agree with User:Mayalld's method, but I do agree with his interpretation) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting to sign my comment. I do that from time to time. Fortunately Sinebot corrected it. However, let there be no doubt that unauthorized use of the red cross emblem is illegal under both US and UK law, stemming from a reading of the Geneva Conventions that is neither dubious nor bollocks. The only exemption being trade marks that predate the convention (such as Johnson and Johnson). The generic use of the symbol is not permitted, and certainly in the UK a green cross on a white background is used. You may well disagree with the way I went about it, however in cases where use of an image is potentially illegal it seems to me that it would be best to refrain from using the image until the matter is clarified, rather than leaving the image up there. Might I suggest that you remove the image until such time as a replacement can be found. Mayalld 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing that, as you can see here. But your action was very heavy-handed, and I don't exactly see any Geneva Convention police knocking down Jimbo Wales' door to serve him with some sort of legal action. We have only your word to go on here, and given the nature of your action, I'm still a bit skeptical. Please, in the future, don't be so quick to rush in and do something like this. There's a fine line between being bold and being overly aggressive. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about that. Article 44 refers to the use of the red cross on a white background AND the words "red cross or geneva cross". Nothing about generic red crosses. (It says there's an exemption for free first aid kits / ambulances, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it on non-free medical supplies before). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I read that as "A is not allowed AND B is not allowed" not "the conjunction of A AND B is not allowed". — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Not sure which it is, but it's probably best to avoid any potential issues and change it.--Bfigura ^(talk) 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could use another medical symbol instead. Itsmejudith 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions. I think it took me about five minutes out crank out that first image. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as the caduceus? Or should we just go a color change and go with a green or blue cross? --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the caduceus might be a bad idea. I think some of the medical/medicine portals might use that symbol, and we probably don't need the confusion. Other ideas?--Bfigura ^(talk) 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it - it needs cropping though :D — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that just after I uploaded it. All fixed now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Looks like. We'll probably need to make sure we keep some sort of mash reference on the intro section to make sure people get the reference. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already there, and has been since Day One. Look at the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead section. Yeah, it's in passing, but it's there. Does this make me Col. Potter or Henry Blake? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I knew it was there, I was just saying we'd have to make sure it didn't get taken out at some point in the future, should've been more clear. As far as who? Hmm... let's just say that I'm familiar enough with Mash to know the theme music, and it stops there. :) Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bing How about this for talk pages of articles in ICU:

This article is in intensive care

ICU And Article Rescue[edit]

Hi everyone. The article rescue squadron's debate on their rescue template is wrapping up, since the TfD for {{rescue}} resolved at keep with caveats.

The upshot seems to be that their template should only be used in certain circumstances, which I'm not going to go into. But I think the icu tag is still okay, as it's essentially a specialized cleanup tag. However, I do think this would be a good time to look at ICU's focus. Perhaps we should reword our goal to focus on pre-AfD debates so as to not overlap with ARS needlessly. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I think the potentially problematic overlap is, is with the "this article has multiple issues" tag. But perhaps our mission is to care for articles that are in an even worse way than those with multiple issues. We can discharge them from ICU at the point when we can identify that they only need one or two processes out of wikifying, stylistic rewriting, referencing NPOV-ing, post-translation cleanup etc. And we can pass many articles into the loving care of appropriate WikiProjects, and tag them for experts. Itsmejudith 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... hadn't thought of that. But I agree with your reasoning. (Since we're only temporarily tagging (with ICU tags) in order to focus our attentions on articles, I think we're okay.) --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

each item in a separate subpage[edit]

I have a suggestion - put each item in a separate sub page. Then, we can transclude it into the appropriate section on the main page or the article archive much more easily (and without losing any edit history)

What do people think? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, although I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough to implement it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. As I understand things, this could be implemented as follows (example for the Bhavabhushan Mitra article)

Create the page Wikipedia talk:Intensive Care Unit/Bhavabhushan Mitra
Copy the current project page subsection on Bhavabhushan Mitra to Wikipedia talk:Intensive Care Unit/Bhavabhushan Mitra
Replace the current project page subsection on Bhavabhushan Mitra with the following: {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Bhavabhushan Mitra}}

Thereafter, updates regarding ICU activities in re Bhavabhushan Mitra would be made by editing Wikipedia talk:Intensive Care Unit/Bhavabhushan Mitra. New articles would be added by placing {{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Article name}} into the appropriate spot on the project page and clicking the resulting redlink to create the subpage.

If there is no objection, and providing nobody with a keener eye than I sees a problem with it, I can do this. Objections? Comments? -- Boracay Bill 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The two big advantages it has are that it's easier to move between sections if status changes, and it keeps all the edit history with the text (rather than the edit history being on this page, and then the text being on the discharged page). Go ahead and do it! :) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Let's do it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the first two. I left the subsection headers on the main page so as to licalize control of subsection level to that one page. If I see no objections in the last day or so, I'll move the rest of the article entries similarly tothe way I've done these two. -- Boracay Bill 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished this. If I've done the job properly, it should be self-explanatory. -- Boracay Bill 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and the same needs to happen to Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit/Article archive — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 02:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also modified the template to allow access either to the associated article or its activity log. -- Boracay Bill 04:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you've done, but the "edit" link on the right hand side of the article no longer works (It worked fine before, and that was an easy and obvious way to get to the activity log, and worked the say way that AfD and RfA, for examples, worked, so I'd prefer to go back to that...) — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm..... Works fine for me with IE 7.0 and with Firefox 2.0 (the only browsers I have handy for testing). The edit links do disappear if you are already editing the page or if you're looking at a past version of the page. Could that be it? -- Boracay Bill 05:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edit links are there, but broken. I looked more closely, and they point to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ICUarticle&action=edit&section=1 which doesn't seem right to me. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 05:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. I'll need to look at the AfD process, figure out how the process and the templates which it uses work, and fit a simplified version of that to the ICU process. That'll take a bit of time - probably a few days of part time work, depending on what's going on in my life outside Wikipedia. If you can live with things as they are for a while, I'll look at it. -- Boracay Bill 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've redone it similarly to AfD. I've edited the To Admit an Article to the ICU sectionof the project page accordingly. -- Boracay Bill 07:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICU Awards[edit]

Could we have some Awards for "doctors"? Could these be considered ?

Rescue from Deletion Award, viewable at WP:PUA Wikipedia Personal User Awards under-General Awards.
Wikipedian Red Cross, viewable at WP:PUA Wikipedia Personal User Awards under-Spreading Kindness.

Kathleen.wright5 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except we can't use the doggone red cross, or the Geneva Convention folks get all hot and bothered. Maybe something M*A*S*H related. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Articles?[edit]

What do we do with articles that have been deleted? e.g Society and Star Trek. Kathleen.wright5 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Issue[edit]

Is anyone else seeing a wrapping problem here: Bengal_Film_Journalists'_Association_-_Best_Actor_Award? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in that article - I see image placement problems with {{icu}}. I've checked with Firefox 2.0.0.8 and with IE 7.0.5730.11 and see problems with both of them. The problem appears to be with the following lines of {{ambox}}, which set the size of the cell containing the image to a fixed size of 52 pixels:

<tr>
<td class="mbox-image">
{{#ifeq:{{{image}}}|none
  | <!-- no image cell; empty cell necessary for text cell to have 100% width -->
  | <div style="width:52px;"> {{#switch:{{{image|{{{type|}}}}}}
    | serious  = [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|40px]]
    | content  = [[Image:Emblem-important.svg|40px]]
    | style    = [[Image:Broom icon.svg|40px]]
    | merge    = [[Image:Merge-split-transwiki default.svg]]
    | notice   = [[Image:Info non-talk.png|40px]]
    | blank    = [[Image:Spacer.gif]]
    | #default = {{{image|[[Image:Info non-talk.png|40px]]}}}
  }}</div>
}}</td>

Images wider than 52 pixels intrude into the text in the adjacent cell. -- Boracay Bill 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be fixed by replacing {{icu}} with the following hack, or someone could fix it more elegantly than this:

<!-- {{icu}} start -->
<!-- commented out for now due to {{ambox}} having a fixed size of 52 pixels for the table cell containing the image
{{ambox
| type  = notice
| image = [[Image:WICU-logo.svg|100px]]
| text  =  '''This article has been placed in the [[Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit|Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit]].'''<br />
One or more editors feels that, while the subject may be notable, the article itself has major issues that might otherwise result in deletion.<br/>''Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by addressing issues listed on the [[Talk:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|talk page]].'' ([[Help:Contents|help]])
 }}
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit]]</includeonly>
<!-- end commenting out -->
<!-- hackish workaround based on {{ambox}} follows -->
<table style="{{{style|}}}" class="metadata plainlinks ambox {{#switch:{{{type|}}}
  | serious  = ambox-serious
  | content  = ambox-content
  | style    = ambox-style
  | merge    = ambox-merge
  | notice   = ambox-notice
  | #default = ambox-notice
}}">
<tr>
<td class="mbox-image"> <div style="width:102px;"> [[Image:WICU-logo.svg|100px]] </div> </td>
<td class="mbox-text">'''This article has been placed in the [[Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit|Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit]].'''<br />
One or more editors feels that, while the subject may be notable, the article itself has major issues that might otherwise result in deletion.<br/>''Please help [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] by addressing issues listed on the [[Talk:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|talk page]].'' ([[Help:Contents|help]])</td>
{{#if:{{{imageright|}}}|
  <td class="mbox-imageright"><div style="width:52px;"> {{{imageright}}} </div></td>
}}
</tr>
</table><noinclude>
{{template doc}}
</noinclude>
<!-- end icu -->

-- Boracay Bill 07:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what the heck? I've replaced the {{icu}} template. Edit as may be appropriate. -- Boracay Bill 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for fixing it. I was trying to avoid a hack, but you gotta do what you gotta do. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation between the ICU and the ARS[edit]

A discussion about the practical details regarding cooperation with the article rescue squadron can be found here. All opinions are welcome.--victor falk 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft new procedure to admit an article to the ICU[edit]

Seeing that there is some concern about this over at WP:ARS, and feeling that the procedure could use some improvement, I've drafted up a new procedure which reorganizes the ordering of a couple of steps and which may be a bit clearer. I propose it here instead of placing it directly on the project page so that the changes can be discussed, refined, and accepted/rejected.

Here it is, in current draft:

---begin

1. Place a {{icu}} tag on the article page

2.Place a {{icu-triage}} on the article's talk page, with the issues to be fixed as a parameter, such as:

{{icu-triage|Additional sources needed; removal of promotional language; general cleanup; lead paragraph needs rewrite to conform to WP style.}}

Similar criteria would apply for articles admitted directly, bypassing triage.

3. Edit this Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit project page to insert a line similar to the following into the appropriate section, specifying the appropriate article name:

4. Save the edited version of this project page. The new version should contain a redlink for the newly admitted article.

5. Click the redlink for the newly admitted article, choose start a page from among the options offered, to create the ICU page for the newly admitted article, and place the following at the top of that page (specifying the appropriate article name):

This may be cut directly from here and pasted at the top of an article's ICU page.
Note that whitespace must not be placed between the | character and the article name.
The article's ICU page should be named Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit/Article name, using the article's actual name.

6. Below the item added to ICU page for the the newly admitted article in the previous step, add a brief explanation of the perceived problems with the article, and save the newly-created ICU page for the article.

---end

Please comment. Please suggest changes/improvements. . -- Boracay Bill 06:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICU Now in Category Wikipedian organizations[edit]

I have just put WP:ICU into Category Wikipedian organizations as has been done with Article Rescue Squadron. Kathleen.wright5 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While on Category's. Shouldn't the templates be in cats and also placing the Icu template on an article should automatically put it in a cat such as Category:Articles in need of intensive care or something? That way the articles would go through a similar process for other maintenance tags do now. See Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2008 which eventually (after six months)becomes Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2007. If you check most of the articles in that last one are getting AfD'd or have prods to delete after five days. This process saves having tagged articles stay on Wikipedia indefinitely. A similar system should be employed for the ICU tag? Although I'm wondering why the existing maintenance tags i.e. wikify, cleanup, notability etc don't suffice? They still show editors which articles are in need of care. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew how to make that happen, I would. Do you have any expertise in this area? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not straight off? I can generally figure out how things work with a little trial and error. I did link a userbox to add users to a category once. That worked differently though as it only includes user pages and not article pages, and I copied existing code on other userboxes and adapted it to mine. Must be a way to do it though and it would certainly help members of the project find articles so tagged. Wouldn't need people who use the tag to separately list those articles on this project page. The biggest problem with that is you will no doubt wind up with some articles tagged and not listed here. You need to keep track of where all the tags are. I'm going offline now (things to do in the real world) but if you can find an expert on fixing templates. Then linking to a category would be handy. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm back online. I think it may be as simple as adding [[Category:Articles in need of intensive care]]<noinclude>| </noinclude>]] under the Template code? Then of course you'd need to create that Category. Would also need to put that Category you make into a parent Category. Perhaps Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. The code on the existing maintenance tags is much more complex (and protected) than my above example. Their code also include datestamps that move articles into different Category's as they get older. I'm not suggesting doing that for this one as I see it as more of a user group template than a regular systems template. Anyhow, I think that above example should work? If not just undo and enlist an expert. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. Just taking a look at the code on the template I see that A Category was created i.e. Category:Articles placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit It's empty because as I said above the template hasn't included it in. If that is the cat you want rather than the one I suggested then use it instead. It is already there waiting to be populated and has a parent cat already as well. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to reward members who successfully improve articles[edit]

I propose that we provide members of the ICU who make significant contributions to improving articles placed under our care with barnstars. I propse that those editors who cleaned up Weapons of Resident Evil 4 receive barnstars for their hard work in that effort, but as I participated in that work, I don't think it would be right for me to be the one to award these members, so I'll provide the list for my fellow members here and hope that we can get the ball rolling on awarding ICU barnstars. The members of the Intensive Care Unit who helped save Weapons of Resident Evil 4 are User:DGG and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. A number of other editors contributed to improving the article during that discussion as well, but are not listed as members of the ICU. If I mistakenly left anybody out, I apologize. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A potential ICU article ?[edit]

Please take a look at the article position paper which certainly has encyclopedic potential. The flaw is that up until now it has been pretty badly scoped to only refer to the term as used with the Model United Nations. Position papers are a common occurence in many political and even commercial organizations and certainly must have notable and verifiable references. While I am not an expert on this subject my instincts tell me there must even be some famous or infamous position papers out there. I am not familiar enough with your team's work to know if this article is "too skimpy" to be brought into the ICU. Suggestions? -- Low Sea (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structural bamboo[edit]

Is structural bamboo worth salvaging? as bamboo is used as construction material in East/Southeast Asia. 70.55.89.9 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAS THE ICU TEAM-PROJECT DIED ?[edit]

??? Low Sea (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does seem to have lost some momentum. Frankly, I haven't seen too many articles that were in the condition we're looking for. They're either pretty obviously good and worth keeping, or pretty obviously need to be deleted and are beyond salvage. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible articles to admit[edit]

See this edit. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron into Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit[edit]

Resolved

– No merging for now. Banjeboi 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion into Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit because:

the articles focus on the same core issues,
the same core beliefs, and
the same core desires,
both have the same layout.
What these three groups are doing is duplicating each others work, were instead we can all be building upon one single page.

If this merger is successful I promise to:

start a weekly newsletter which will be automatically delivered to everyones email (other weekly newsletters already exists) and
a Portal:Inclusion (or some other name chosen by the community).
Continue to consolidate efforts of inclusionists on all wikipedia projects.

Strong support. I proposed the merge Inclusionist (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The above user then took it upon himself to redirect this page to the ARS talk page. Obviously, that's been reverted. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. For the same reasons we haven't done it in the past. Perhaps there are ways to collaborate but ARS, has a specialty in just AfD issues and the other projects are specialists in their concerns. Glad to see your actually proposing this instead of simply merging them like you did earlier. Banjeboi 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All merges have been reverted, there is now a proposal to merge and the discussion is at Wikipedia Talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Proposed merger of WICU into ARS. Banjeboi 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible article for WICU[edit]

Joe Sernio has a three month stay of execution for sourcing concerns/notability. Banjeboi 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update to {{icu-saved}}[edit]

Following a request to add some code ...{{icu-saved}}, the template that seems to used after the article has been through WICU, can now be nested along with wikiproject templates on busier talkpages. Just add "nested = yes" as one of the parameters. Banjeboi 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{findsourcesnotice}}[edit]

Hi ICU. I created {{findsourcesnotice}} as a way editors can quickly tag non-ICU talk pages to suggest where those interested in the article may find reilable source material for the article. -- Suntag ☼ 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]